ML20106B782
| ML20106B782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20106B777 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9210050161 | |
| Download: ML20106B782 (2) | |
Text
pa arco
[5 4,
UNITED STATES
'j NUCLEAR REGUl. ATORY COMMIS510N e
3,a g,,
g WASWNGTON, D. C 20Pi5 g
e
%w*..../
SAFETY lyfA_lVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REATTOR REsyLATION R W TED TO AMENDMENT NO.
173 TO FACillTY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 f0LEDO E0lS0fj COMPANY UNTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY AND THE CLEVELANDlLECTRim ILLUMINATINr.COMPAtil DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO, 1 DOCKET NO. 50-345 1.0 INTR 000CTI0f]
By letter dated April 20, 1992, Toledo Edison Company reqt.asted a revision to the Technical Specificatiuns for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. The proposed change would revise Technical Specifiation (TS) 5.3.2, " Reactor Core - Control Rods," to allow the use of extended life control rods, and allow the use of different Inconel absorber material for the axial power shapii.g rods.
2.0 EVAIJBTION Thera are small differences between the new extended life conti 1 rods (ELCRAs) and the standard Mark-B control rods. The neutron absorber in the ELCRAs has a slightly smaller diameter than that for the standard design, which is offset by a longer absorber length.
The resulting worth for thr.
ELCRA design is equal to that of the standard design at the beginning of the-cycle and is slightly greater at the end of cycle.
Rod worths are calculated for each fuel cycle using NRC-approved computer codes to ensure that they are acceptable for that cycle.
The external dimensions of the ELCRAs are effectively identical to the Mark-B design even though the ELCRAs are clad with inconel rather than with stainless steel.
Calculations have been performed to show that mechanical design a-thermal hydraulic characteristics are acceptable. Also, the ELCRAs,!eig-the same as the Mark-B control rod assemblies.
Therefore, the conb :,1 rod cap times of the ELCRAs should be unaffected.
Technical Specification surveil-lance testing, requi ed prior to startup, will verify the rod drop times.
The use of ELCRAs was approved for the Crystal Rfver Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant by license Amendment No. 103 ist.ued on December 14, 1987. The TS wording requested by Davis-Besse is essentialij identical to that approved for Crystal River.
Therefore, based on the above, the NRC staff finds that the use of ELCRAs at Davis-Besse is acceptable.
9210050161 920922 PDR ADOCK 05000346
?
., The prtposed change for the axial power shaping rods (APSRs) would change the requirement for the absorber material from Inconel-600 to Inconel.
This change has also previously been approved for Crystal River.
Normal design controls, the reload report safety evaluation corresponding to the first use of a different absorber material, and the TS requirement for axial power imbalanca to be within 'he limits of the CORE CPERATING LIMITS REPORT, will suf ficiently control the use of a dif ferent Inconel absorber materici for the APSRs. Therefore, based on the above, the NRC staf f finds this charge to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
4 In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official haa no comments.
4.0 (fjylRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-lation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any ef fluents 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 ' evolves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 32578). Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental tssessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4
5.0 CONCLUSION
On the basis of the considerations discussed abovt. the staff concludes that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health an.' safety of-the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed. manner, (2)'such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i i
Principal Centributor:
J. Hopkins Date: September 22, 1992 j.
i t
,..,, ~ ~