ML20043E291
| ML20043E291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043E290 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006120252 | |
| Download: ML20043E291 (4) | |
Text
.
~ _.
( L' ' ' [
.\\
umiso sTATss
' 8' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
\\....+ /j i
t wAssiwatow, p. c, acons SAFETY EVALUATION EY THE OFFICE OF NUCtFAR REACTOR REGut ATION SL'PFORTING t
i AMENDHENT N05.154 Att0 155 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. OPR-44 and DPR-56 PHILADE!,PHIA El'CTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC 5ERVICE ELECTIIC AND GA5 COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGH1 CQMFANT ATL AMTIC CITT ELEUUtIC CwrANY PEACH BOTT0ti ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT N05. 2 AND 3 DOCKET N05. F0 277 AND 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 8, 1990 as supplemented on April 26, 1990, Philadelphia Ficctric Company requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-44 and DPR-56 for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
The licensee's April 26, 1990 letter proposed editorial and administrative revisions to the TS changes proposed in its original March 8, 1990 submittal.
The staff also repaginated portions of the TS without altering the language therein. The staff has determined that these additional changes do not substantially alter the actions noticed or affect the proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration published April 18, 1990. The amendments would modify Technical Specifications (TS) having cycle-specific parameter limits by replacing the values of those limits with a reference to a 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 TS. Guidance on the proposed changes was developed by NRC on the basis of the review of a leswd-plant proposal submitted on the Ocoree plant docket by Duke Power Company. This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by NRC Generic letter 88-16. " Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications.' The proposed amendments also involve miscellaneous administrative changes.
2.0 EVALUATION 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-specific basis
+
in accordance with NRC approved methodologies that maintain the limits of the safety tralysis. The definition notes that plant operation within these limits is addressed by individual specifications.
9006120252 900521 gDR ADOCK0500{g{7 4-
" b i#
I t
G - -
I
__,7
O..
g 0.
-2 1
(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.
(a) Specification 3.5.1 TheAveragePlanarLinearHeatGenerationRate(APLHGR) limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
(b) Specification 3.5.J E
The Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
- - (c) Specification 3.5.K i
The Minimum Critical Power Ratic (MCPR) limits and the MCPR flow adjustment factor (K ) for this specification are specified in f
the COLR.
(d) Specification 3.2.C P
The upscale high flow clamped Rod Block Monitor (RBM) setpoint',
which is aise used in the upscale flow biased RBM setpoint, of this specification is specified in the COLR.
l These changes to the specifications also required changes to the TS Bases.
l Based on our review, we conclude that the changes to these Bases are acceptable.
i (3) Specification 6.9.1.e was added to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Centrols section of the TS. This specification requires that the COLR be submitted, upon issuance, to the NRC Docue nt Control Desk with copies to the Regional Administrator and l
Resident Inspector. The report provides the values of cycle-specific sarameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle, rurthermore, this specification requires 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:
(a)- NEDE-24011 P-A. " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel" (latest approved version).
(b) Philadelphia Electric Company Methodologies as described in:
1.
PEco-FMS-0001-A, " Steady-! tate Thermal Hydraulie Analysis of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Using the FIBWR Computer Code."
O A
- q. [ -
,4% } v
+
k-W I *t *-
8
i l
3-2.
PEco-FMS-0002-A,'MethodforCalculating(TransientCritical Power Ratios for Boiling Water Reactors RETRAN-TCPPECo)."
l 3.
PEco-FMS-0003-A, ' Steady-State Fuel Performance Methods Report.'
l.
4 PEco-FMS-0004-A, " Methods for Performing BWR Systems Transient Analysis.'
5.
PEco-FMS-0005-A, " Methods for Performing BWR Steady State
[
Reactor Physics Analysis."
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or L
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 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, tie NRC staff concludes that tnis change is administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed chang's are acceptable.
e 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.
1 In response to an April 5, 1990 NRC telecon request, the licensee
-withdrew Unit 3 page 140b and pages 17, 24 and 140c for both units from the proposed-list of changed TS pages in its April 26, 1990 submittal.
The staff has reviewed these changes and associated changes which removed l
all references to topical report PEco-FMS-0006. The staff concludes I
these changes are acceptable because they remove references to a topical report which has not yet received NRC approval.
The proposed amendments also involved miscellaneous administrative changes to TS Table 3.2.C and various TS pages including those for TS 4.5.K.2.C. Bases for TS 3.5.H. 3.5.I. 3.5.L. and 4.5.L. and TS 6.9.1.C.
The staff determined that these changes correct errors, achieve consistency, and provide clarifications, and thus are acceptable.
The revised Technical Specification pages approved and issued by the staff in these amendments differ from the proposed pages in the licensee's submittals to allow for appropriate pagination. Specifically, portions of TS Bases 4.5.L were moved from page 141a to page 141b and portions of
-e 9
e s ' w e=e
+
4 e
4 4
s' <
~-
g 8
0-1 p
SF'
p a..
4 l
TS 6.9.1.e.(2) were moved from page 256 to page 256a on Units 2 and 3 and portions of the TS List of Figures were moved from page iv to a new page iva en Unit 3.
The staff made no changes to the wording in the licensee's proposed TS pages and notified the licensee regarding this reformatting.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S l
These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the E
installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted l-area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements, a
The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public 1
coment on such finding. The amendments also involve changes to record-keeping and reporting requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the-elig(ibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 14517) on April 18, 1990 and consc1ted with the Comonwealt.
of Pennsylvania. No public coments were received and the Comonwealth of Pennsylvania did not lave any corsnents.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
l (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 l-regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to l
the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Datet : May 21, 1990 Principai Contributors:
D. Fieno-T. Dunning 4
q 6
e e-