ML20005G045
| ML20005G045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005G043 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001180037 | |
| Download: ML20005G045 (5) | |
Text
S UNITED STATES p
~
6
, f.
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ukl$
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 i
0 SAFETY EVALUATION.BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED T0. AMENDNENT.NO.144.. TO. FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE.NO..NPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY 8.N,0 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 y
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated J ne 16,1989(Ref.I 1989(Ref.2),Tcledo-EdisonCompany the licensee) y letter dated August 21, as amended b proposed changes to the
' Technical Specifications (TS) for the Davis-Besse plant. The-proposed changes
- would modify specifications having-cycle-specific parameter limits by replacing the values ~of those limits with a reference to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) for the values of those limits. The proposed changes also include the addition of the COLR to the Definitions'section and to the reporting requirements-of the Administrative Controls section of the TS. Guidance on the proposed '
- changes wasideveloped by NRC on the basis of the review of a lead-plant proposal submitted on the Oconee plant docket by Duke Power Company. This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16,datedOctober4,1988(Ref.3).
12.0 -EVALUATION The~11censee's proposed changes to the TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below, (1) The Definitions section of the TS was modified to include a definition of c
the Core Operating Limits Report that requires cycle / reload-specific
. parameter limits to be established on a unit-specific basis in accordance with an NRC approved methodology that maintains the limits of the safety analysis. The definition notes that plant operation within these limits is addressed by individual specifications.
(2) The following specifications were revised to replace the values of cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the COLR that provides these limits.
P I' \\
I
,'x l
F c
2.
d). Specification 3.1.3.1,Actionc.2e The statement concerning rod position limits has been revised to s
explicitly cite the COLR.
(b)- Specification-3/4.1.3.6 The regulating rod group position limits for this specification are
- q
- provided-in. tie'COLR.
(c) Specification.3.1.3.7 The control rod assembly location and group for this specification
-are provided in the COLR.
(d) Specification 3.1.3.8
.The power level cut-off for xenon reactivity for this specification'
+
is specified in.the regulating rod position limits provided-in the COLR.
(e) Specification 3.1.3.9 -
The axial power shaping rods insertion limits are provided in the
-COLR,
-(f)' Specification 3/4.2.1 The axial power imbalance limits for this specification are provided in the COLR.
.(g) Specification 3.2.4 The quadrant power tilt limits for this specification are provided in the COLR.
The bases of affected specifications have been modified by the licensee
'to include appropriate references to the COLK.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that the changes to these bases are acceptable.
(3) Specification 6.9.1.7 was added to the reporting requirements of the
. Administrative Controls section of the TS. This specification requires that the COLR be submitted, upon issuance, to the NRC Document Control Desk with copies to the Regional Administrator and Resident Inspector.
The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle.
Furthermore, these specifications require that the values of these limits be established
- using NRC a) proved methodologies and be consistent with all applicable limits of tie safety analysis. The approved methodologies are the following
l
~
m
A z;
,, ;f : ?
m
[ s (a)- BAW-10122A Rev. I', " Normal Operating Controls " May-1984 (b) BAW-10116A, " Assembly Calculations and Fitted Nuclear Data," May
-1977.
(c) BAW-10117P-A, " Babcock & Wilcox Version of PDQ User's Manual,"
January 1977.
(d) BAW-10118A, " Core Calculational Techniques and Procedures " December 1979.
g (e) BAW-10124A- " FLAME 3 - A Three-Dimensional Nodal Code for r
Calculating Core Reactivity and Power Distributions," August 1976.
(f) BAW-10125A, " Verification of Three-Dimensional FLAME Code " August
_ 1976.
(g) BAW-10152A " NOODLE - A Multi-Dimensional Two-Group Reactor Simulator,A. June 1985.
(h) BAW-10119, " Power Peaking Nuclear Reliability Factors," June 1977.
(1)_ The methodology for Rod Program received NRC approval in the Safety Evaluation Report dated September 1989.
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific
- parameter limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or remaining part of-a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
On.the basis of the review of the above items,'the NRC staff concludes that-the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in e
-the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits.in TS.
Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are established using NRC' approved methodologies, the NRC staff concludes that this. change is administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed changes are acceptable.
'As part of the implementation of Generic Letter 88-16, the staff has also reviewed a sample COLR that was provided by the licensee. On the basis of this review,'the staff concludes that the format and content of the sample COLR are acceptable.
-o v
w -
In addition to implementing the COLR in accordance with Generic Letter 88-16, the licensee presented a methodology for rod program for review.
-The methodology discusses the criteria and rationale used to determine the designation and location of the control rods in the shutdown,-regulating.
.and axial power shaping rod banks. The control rod designations and locations for,each rod group are specified by Specification 3.1.3.7 and "provided in the COLR..On the basis of its review, the staff concludes that the methodology for rod program is acceptable.
The staff has' reviewed the request by the Toledo Edison Company to modify
-the Technical Specifications of the Davis-Besse plant that would remove the specific-values of some cycle-(cpendent parameters from the specifications and place the values in a Core Operating Limits Report that would be referenced by the specification. Based on this review, the staff concludes that these Technical Specification modifications are acceptable.
It also concludes that the rod program methodology is acceptable.
'3.0-ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
-This_ amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-1ation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined'in 10 CFR part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative. occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth:in10CFR51.22(c)(9). This amendment also involves changes in record-keeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendments neet the eligibility criteria for categoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR651.22(c)(10). pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 ' CONCLUSION-The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed'above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
- y.. ; O -;
4 s.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter _ (#1668) from D.C. Shelton' (TECo) to NRC, dated June 16, 1989.
Letter (#1691)fromD.C.-Shelton(TEco);toNRC,datedAugust 21, 1989.
- 2...
3.
Generic Letter 88-16 " Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications," dated October 4,1988.
Principal Contributor:
D. Fieno Dated:: January 11, 1990
,