ML20059F999
| ML20059F999 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1990 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059F994 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009120083 | |
| Download: ML20059F999 (3) | |
Text
ATTACEMENT 3'-
-.s
?ROPOSED CBANGES TO APPENDIX.A, TECEMICAL SPECIFICATICEIS =
' DPR - 2 9 1.1/2,1-1 1
h F
t
'I i
r i
i A
ti r
'i S
i
/sc1:ID214:3 9009120083 900031 E'
PDR ADOCK 05000254ft L
-P
_PNU.p__,
f QUAD CITIES DPR-29 1.1/2.1 FUEL. CLADDING INTEGRITY l
SAFETY LIMIT LIMITING SAFETY SYSTEM SETTING j
Applicability:
Applicability:'
d i
The safety limits established to preserve =
~The. limiting safety system settings apply? l the fuel cladding integrity apply to to trip settings.of the instruments and
' -i those var.iables which monitor the fuel devices which are provided-to prevent the thermal behavior, fuelcladdingintegritysafetylimitsfrom'l being exct ded..
1 i
Objective:
Objectivoi j
The objective of the safety limits is to
-Theobjectiveofthelimiting'safetysys-'1 establish limits below which the integ.
tem settings is to define the level of-
-rity of the fuel cladding is preserved, the process variables at which automaticj.;
protective action is initiated to, pre-1 z
- vent.the fuel cladding integrity-safety l
limits.from being exceeded.
j SPECIFICATIONS A.
Reactor. Pressure > 800 psig and Core A.-
Neutron Flux Trip Settings f
Flow > 10% of Rated 7
The existence of a minimum critical The'11miting safety system trip set-l power ratio (MCPR) less than 1.07" tings shall be as specified.below:
j shall constitute violation of the.
fuel cladding integrity safety limit.
- 1. -
APRM Flux Scram Trip Setting ~
L(Run Mode) l When the reactor mode switch is
/, O f in the Run position,,the APRM I
flux scram setting shall-be as.
shown in Figure 2.1-1 and shall-be:-
l S 5,( 58WO + 62)~
{
with'amaximumsetpointof.120%-1 for core. flow equal.to 98 x 108 lb/hr and greater.
i where S = setting in percent of rated power i
l 1.1/2.1-1 Amendment No. 114-
~...
1 4
ATTACIBGENT - 4 EVALDATION & EO SICBIIFICANT BAZARDS CONSIDERATICEI 1
Commonwealth Edison Company proposes' an amendment to Facility Operating License. DPR-29 which. would change the Technical j
2
- Specifications to allow for operation during Cycle.12_and subsequent cycles with a fuel type which, while new to Quad Cities reload, has been previously_ approved by the NRC on a generic: basis.
l As discussed'in the Description for the Amendment, request, j
Commonwealth Edison proposes-to revise,to the MCPR' safety limit-from 1.07 to 1.06, which corresponds,to the MCPR safety limit for GE8X8NB fuel in D-lattice reactors.
j BARIS_EELEQ_SIGIIFICANT BAEA8tDS CONSIDERATION Commonwealth Edison has evaluated this proposed amendment and determined that the change does'not involve a significant hazards consideration.
In ' accordance with 10CFR50. 92 (c) :
t 1.
The proposed change does not involve a significant= increase i
in - the probability or consequences of an accident 'previously evaluated.
The primary fission product barrier will continue to be-protected during normal and transient operation.1 Operation.
of all secondary fission product barriers are unaffected by this change.
The 1.06 MCPR safety lindt value will preserve the, required' margin of safety for' clad integrity.
This MCPR safety lindt-ensures that 99.9% of the fuel rods would be expected to avoid boiling transition.during steady-state or transient conditions with a 95% confidence level.-
Theinew1 fuel type (GE8x8NB) and-analytical methods for establishing the safety lindt have received NRC approval.
Thus, this change does not increase the probability or consequences of a.previously evaluated accident.
2.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a-new
- i or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
l The primary fission product barrier will continue to be protected during normal and transient operation.
Operation of all secondary fission product: F eriers are unaffected by this change.
No new operationalin,Jes are introduced by this E
change.
Thus, the possibility _of new or different accidents is not created.
L 3.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction-
)
in.the margin of-safety.
L The required margin will be< maintained for all fuel. types'and L
increased for some fuel types.
The proposed' Technical Specification change reflects the required' safety limit for GE8x8NB~ fuel, while establishing a MCPR safety limit that.is more conservative than required-for all other fuel types.
The margin of safety is therefore not significantly reduced.
?
i
/scitID214:5 s
- - -