ML20141B774

Proposed Tech Specs,Changing LACBWR Controlling Documents

ML20141B774
Person / Time
Site:	La Crosse File:Dairyland Power Cooperative icon.png
Issue date:	05/09/1997
From:	DAIRYLAND POWER COOPERATIVE
To:
Shared Package
ML20141B757	List: ML20141B752 ML20141B774
References
NUDOCS 9705160027
Download: ML20141B774 (4)

Text

. ___ _ _. .

. i u;

t O

LACBWR

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS >

1 l

! BASES l I

i I

f O

~

NOTE The BASES contained in this document summarize the reasons for the Technical Specifications in Sections 3 and 4/5 but, in accordance with 10CFR50.36, are not part of Technical Specifications.

l l

May 1997 l

i' l 9705160027 PDR 970509*

j P

ADOCK 05000409 l PDR1 i

l

U L;'

' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION BASES Safety Analysis in Accordance with Decommissionino Plan and Technical f Specifications: l

\

(1) Will the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment necessary for SAFSTOR previously evaluated eitherin the Decommissioning Plan or FSAR be increased? NO Justification For Answer: j The License Amendment Request for Technical Specification (T.S.) improve- '

ments proposed to remove the Bases section of Technical Specifications and maintain the T.S. Bases as a separate document governed by plant i administrative controls. Amendment No. 69 has been issued by the Commission and the T.S. Bases as included with the License Amendment Request is being issued as a new document under the control of ACP-07.1.

This change is administrative in nature and does not affect the assumptions contained in the SAFSTOR accident analysis, the physical plant design or the operation of the plant. Therefore, this change does not affect the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed.

(2) Is there a possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated in the Decommissioning Plan or FSAR being created?

g NO

(]

Justification For Answer:

This proposed change is administrative in nature. This change does not involve the addition of, or modification to, equipment nor does it alter the design of operation of the plant. Therefore, no new failure modes are introduced and the possibility of a new or different kind of accident is not created.

(3) Is the margin of safety as defined in the Bases for any Technical Specifications reduced? NO Justification For Answer: ,

The operating limits and functional capabilities of plant systems are unaffected by this change. Therefore, the proposed change does not reduce the margin of safety maintained.

l (4) Will the proposed change result in a significant environmentalimpact not previously evaluated in the Environmental Assessraent in suriport of the August 7,1991, Decommissioning Order or the Final Environmental Statement (FES) related to operation of LACBWR, dated April 21,1980 (NUREG-0191)? NO (A) Justification For Answer:

There is no environmenta impact associated with this change.

W*

p BASES ~

=====,===============================================

- The BASES in this section provide the general requirements applicable to each of the Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance Requirements within Section 4/5.

3.1 This specification defines the applicability of each specification in terms of specified applicability conditions and is provided to delineate specifically when each specification is applicable.

i 3.2 This specification defines those conditions necessary to constitute compliance with the terms of an individual Limiting Condition for Operation and ,

I associated ACTION requirement.

3.3 This specification provides that entry into specified applicability condition must be made with (a) the full complement of required systems, equipment or components OPERABLE and (b) all other parameters as specified in the Limiting .

Conditions for Operation being met without regard for allowable deviations and out i of service provisions contained in the ACTION statements.

The intent of this provision is to ensure that activities are not initiated with either i E required equipment or systems inoperable or other specified limits being .i exceeded.

Exceptions to this provision have been provided for a limited number of specifications when performance of activities with inoperable equipment would not i affect plant safety. These exceptions are stated in the ACTION statements of the  ;

appropriate specifications. I 3.4 This specification provides that surveillance activities necessary to ensure that the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and will be performed during the specified applicability conditions for which the Limiting Conditions for Operation are applicable. Provisions for additional surveillance activities to be performed without regard to the specified applicability conditions are provided in the individual Surveillance Requirements.

3.5 The provision of this specification provides an allowable tolercnce for i performing surveillance activities beyond those specified in the nominal surveillance interval. This tolerance is necessary to provide flexibility because of '

f scheduling and performance considerations. The phrase "at least" associated with l a surveillance frequency requirement does not negate these allowable tolerances for performing surveillance activities.

The tolerance value is sufficiently restrictive to ensure that the reliability associated with the surveillance activity is not significantly degraded beyond that obtained from the nominal specified interval.

i i

[O l

TS BASES 1 May 1997

U-j BASES

=====================================================

gO

+

C) 3.6 The provisions of this specification set forth the criteria for determination of compliance with the OPERABILITY requirements of the Limiting Condition for Operation. Under this criteria, equipment, systems or components are assumed to be OPERABLE if the associated surveillance activities have been satisfactorily performed within the specified time interval. Nothing in this provision is to be construed as defining equipment, systems or components OPERABLE, when such items are found or known to be inoperable although still meeting the Surveillance Requirements. l 3.7 This specification ensures that the surveillance activities associated with a .

Limiting Condition for Operation have been performed within the specified time l interval prior to entry into specified applicability condition. The intent of this provision is to ensure that surveillance activities have been satisfactorily demonstrated on a current basis as required to meet the OPERABILITY requirements of the Limiting Condition for Operation. j l

4/5.1 Fuel Storaae and Handlina l 4.1.1 General Fuel Storaae and Handlina Reauirements Spent fuel storage is provided in the spent fuel storage racks located in the Fuel fO Element Storage Well within the Containment Building. The spent fuel storage.

V racks are designed with a nominal 7.0 inch center-to center distance between fuel assemblies in each individual rack assembly with a boron impregnated poison plate between each storage location to ensure K, of 10.95 when flooded with unborated water. Fuel stored in the storage well is restricted to fuel with stainless steel cladding which has a U-235 loading of 5 22.6 grams per axial centimeter of fuel assembly. A fuel hanciling system is provided which is capable of remotely handling fuel assemblies one at a time.

4.1.2 Fuel Element Storaae Well The Fuel Element Storage Well System is capable of maintaining water temperature i150 F and maintaining water quality within the established limits.

Minimu'm water coverage limits above fuel stored in the storage racks and fuel being handled have been established to provide adequate shielding to protect personnel and to provide adequate cooling. Limits to the handling of heavy objects over the Fuel Element Storage Well have been established to reduce the probability of a heavy load drop into the storage well.

i l

TS BASES 2 May 1997