ML20042F064
| ML20042F064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042F062 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005070178 | |
| Download: ML20042F064 (2) | |
Text
- _ -
?
u
.,,~
E(
[
~ {g
~
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
N*,,,*/;E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$$$
SAFETY EVALUATION BY,THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT-NO. 154'TO FACILITY OPERATING ' LICENSE NO. DPR-66' AMENDMENT NO. 31 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-73' DU00ESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY PENN5YLVANIA POWER COMPANY THE CLEVELAND ELELIHIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION.' UNIT HOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-334 AND 50-412 l
d INTRODUCTION i
i
_Dy letter dated December 14, 1989, Duquesne Light Company (the licensee, acting as agent for the above utilities) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications 1
(TS) for Beaver Valley Units 1 and:2. The proposed changes would modify specifications having cycle-specific parameter;11mits 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 Controle section of the TS. Guidance on.the proposed changes 3
was developed by HRC on the basis of the review of a lead-plant proposal ~
submitted on the Ocenee plant docket that was provided,to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter (GL) 88-16, dated October 4,_1988.
EVALUATION j
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) Section 1.0, Definitions This section of the TS was modified to include a-definition of the COLR 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 specification.
The wording of the COLP definition complies verbatim with that in GL 88-16, and is thus acceptable.
(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: Section 3.1.3.1 (and associated Fig. 3.1-1 and 3.1-2),
9005070178 900426 DR ADOCK 05000334 PDC
c i l 3.1.3.5, 4.1.3.5, 3.1.3.6, 3.2.1 (and associated Fig 3.2-1),4.2.1.2, 3.2.2 (and associated Fig. 3.2-2) 3.2.3, 4.2.2.2, Basis 3/4.2.1. Bases a
3/4.2.2 and' Bases 3/4.2.3.
(3) Specification-6.9.1.14, Core Operating Limits Report, 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. The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle.
i Furthermore, this specification requires that the values of these limits be established using the NkC-approved methodology in topical reports and.
NRC letters approving a plant-specific methodology submittal, and consistent with all applicable limits of the safety analysis. Finally, the specification requires that' all. changes in cycle-specific parameter c
l limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or. remaining' L
part of a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to-operation with the new parameter limits.
l On the basis of the review of the above items, we conclude that the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 83-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits. Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the. values of cycle-specific parameter' limits.that are established using an NRC-approved methodology i
I we conclude that these changes are administrative in nature and there is no impact on. plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, we find the' proposed' changes acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION l
These amendments involve changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility.
o l
criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR.51.22(c)(10). Pursuant.
to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environtrental impact statement or environmental assessment i
L need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
L CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed'above, that: (1)there is reasonable assurance that the health and safet of the public will'not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (y) such' activities will be 2
conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the! issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: April 26, 1990 l.
Principal Contributor: Peter s. Tam 4
-