ML20011F520
| ML20011F520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011F519 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-88-16, NUDOCS 9003060187 | |
| Download: ML20011F520 (4) | |
Text
._
4:
}
2
/. a ncy'o, UNITE D STATES E"
'It NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-[
,i WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 1....+/
)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAP. REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.110 TO PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-19 AND AMENDMENT NO. 105 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-25 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DRESDEN NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-237 AND 50-249
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 30, 1989 (Ref. 1), as supplemented by letter dated November 20,1989 (Ref. 2), Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) proposed changesto-theTechnicalSpecifications(TS)fortheDresdenNuclearPower Station, Units 2 and 3.
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 Controis-section of TS. Guidance on the proposed changes was developed 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, dated October 4, 1988 (Ref.3).
The November 20, 1989 submittal incorporated the referenced topical reports as L
an integral part of Section 6 to the Technical Specifications. Since this submittal only provided clarification to the October 30, 1989 submittal, it did not change the action as previously noticed, or alter the initial no significant determination published, in the Federal Register on November 29, 1989.
l-2.0 EVALUATIM, The licensee's proposed changes to the TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below.
(1) The Definition section of the TS was modified to include a definition of the Core Operating Limits Report that requires cycle / reload-specific parameter limits to be established on a unit-specifit, 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 l
is addressed by individual specifications.
1 1
(2) The following specifications were revised for both Dresden 2 and Dresden 3 to replace the values of cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the COLR that provides these limits.
h3 hh hobOb3'7 h@
PDC p
J 4
1 2
(a) Specification 3.2.C(Table 3.2-3)
]
The Rod Block Monitor (RBM) upscale setpoint relationships for this specification are specified in the COLR.
1 (b) Specification 3.5.1, 3.5 D.2 and 3.6.H.3.f TheAveragePlanarLinearHeatGenerationRate(APLHGR)limitsand associated APLiiGR multipliers for these specifications are specified in the COLR.
(c) Specification 3.5.0 The Local Steady State Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) limit for this specification is specified in the COLR.
(d) Specification 3.5.X The Local Transient Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) limit for this specification is specified in the COLR.
(e) Specification 3.5.L The Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) operating limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
The bases of affected specifications have been modified by the licensee to include appropriate reference to the COLR.
Based on our review, we conclude that the changes to these bases are acceptable.
(3) Specification 6.6.A.4 was added to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS for both Dresden 2 and Dresden 3.
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.
Further, these specifications require that the values of these limits be established using NRC approved methodologies and be consistent with all applicable limits of the safety analysis. The approved methodologies are the following for both Dresden ? and Dresden 3:
b (a) XN-NF-512(P)(A), "XN-3 Critical Power Correlation."
(b) XN-NF-524(P)( A), " Exxon Nuclear Critical Power Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors."
(c) XN-NF-79-71(P)(A), " Exxon Nuclear Plant Transient Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors."
(d) XN-NF-80-19(P)(A), " Exxon Nuclear Methodology for Boiling Water Reactors."
o!
s i
o 3
(e) XN-NF-85-67(P)(A), " Generic Mechanical Design for Exxon Nuclear Jet Pump Boiling Water Reactors Reload Fuel "
(f) XN-NF-81-??(P)(A), " Generic Statistical Uncertainty Analysis Methodology."
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or i
remaining part of a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
On.the Dosis of the review of the 6bove items, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in 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 these changes are administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed changes are i
acceptable.
- As part of the implementation of Generic Letter 88-16, the staff has also reviewed a sanple 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.
In addition to the changes identified above to implement the_COLR in accordance with the guidance of Generic Letter 88-16, the licensee made a number of admininstrative changes to the Technical Specifications and Bases sections to support these changes. Since these changes, such as eliminating duplicate COLR references and updating the Bases to support the COLR change, are administrative in nature they are acceptable.
1 We have reviewed the request by the Commonwealth Edison Company to modify the Technical Specifications of the Dresden 2 and Dresden 3 plartts that would remove the specific va' lues of some cycle-dependent parameters from the specifications'and place the values in a Core Operating Limits Report that would be referenced by the affected specifications.
Based on this review, we conclude that these Technical Specification modifications are acceptable.
We, also conclude that the other changes to the Technical Specifications, which support this COLR change, are administrative and are acceptable.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
I (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 Commission's regulations, and issuance of this amendment ws11 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
a I
0:
g 4-
-3.0= ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a changes to a requirement with respect to the installation 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards-consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding..
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria for categorical
. This amendment also involves changes;in'recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendments meet the eligibility' criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR
$51.22(c)(10).
Pursuantto--10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0- CONCLllS10N The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above that: (1) of.thepubilewillnot
-thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafety(2)suchactivitieswill
'i be endangered by operation-in the proposed manner, and
'be conducted in compliance ~with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1 ' : Letter from J. A.-Silady (CECO) to Thomas E. Murley'(NRC), dated October 30, 1989.
2.
Letter from~J. A. Silady (CECO) to Thomas E. Murley (NRC), dated
. November 20, 1989.
(
- 3.
Generic Letter 88-16, " Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications," dated October 4, 1988.
Principal Contributor:
D. Fieno Dated:
February 8, 1990 l
p
-