ML20247R860
| ML20247R860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247R858 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906080003 | |
| Download: ML20247R860 (3) | |
Text
____--__-___- - -
L
- I G g, -
[R UNITED STATES
' se/ '{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
'"p
. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
,o[
v S/FETY EVALUATION BY TPE Cff1CE OF NUCLEAP REACTCR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDf!ENT tl0. 141 TO FACILITY OFERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 AND APENDMENT NO.17 TO FACILITY GPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-73 DUOUESKE LIGHT COMPANY CHIO EDISON COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COPPANY THE CLEVELANC ELECTRIC ILLL'MINATING COMPANY THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY BEtVER VALLEY PC,WEP STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET h05. 50-334 AND 50-412 It;TRODUCTION Py letter dated January 5,1989, Duquesne Light Company (the licenses, acting as egent for the utilities listed abcve) submitted e letter which propcsed changing Specificatich 3.1.3.1 to clarify the limiting ccndition fer cperation and acticn requirerients concerning control red operability and niate several editorial changes or corrections. Our evaluation of the request is es follows.
3 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION 1
The proposed changes reflect recorpended wording prcvided to the NRC by a Westinghouse letter (E.P. Rahe to NRC, dated December ?),1984, NRC Accession i
ho. 6501070361) and subsequer.tly incorporated into the M111 stere Unit 3 j
i Technical Specifications.
(1) Specification 3.1.3.1
. The parentheses around " shutdown and control" are deleted. The phrase l
" corresponding 5 to their respctive grcup der.and counter position" is replaced with "of their group step counter derr.and pcsition." These change 3 do not affect the substance of this specification, but conforms the wording with draft Pevisier E of the Westingtcuse Standard Techrical Specifications (NUREC-Oa52). Furthermore, the revised werding is identicel l-to that of the t'111stor.e 3 Technical Specifications. These changes are I
acceptable.
hkOkbob P
' (2)
Specification 3.3.3.1.b The phrase " inoperable or" has been deleted since inoperable rods are addressed by actions a. and c.
This change thus eliminates a potential confusion.
In addition, the phrase " group demand counter position" is replaced with " group step counter demand position." This is only a wording change to conform with draft NUREG-0452 Revision 5 and does not affect the substance of this specification. The changes are acceptable.
(3) Specification 3.1.3.1.c The phrase " group demand counter position" has been replaced by " group step counter demand position." For the reasons set forth in (2) above, this is acceptable.
In addition, action c.2 of Unit I has been revised by renioving the parentheses around figure numbers, and by separating the sentence into two. These changes are purely editorial and acceptable.
(a) Specification 3.1.3.1.d.
Action d. has been added to address conditions where more than one rod is trippable but inoperable due to causes other than addressed by action a.
With a rod (s) inoperable but trippable, the operator is required to align the remainder of the rods in the group (s) with the inoperable rod (s) within one hour. During this condition, the operator is also required to maintain the rcd sequence and insertion limits within the limits of Figures 3.1-1 (both units) and 3.1-2 (Unit 1 only) and limit reactor power in accordance with Specification 3.1.3.6.
The inoperable rods must be restored to operable status within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. This is consistent with the Westinghouse letter and our position as expressed in the Millstone Unit 3 Technical Specifications. This new specification provides increased operational flexibility but does not reduce any safety margin since the rods will terrain trippable. The new action is thus acceptable.
(5) Specification 4.1.3.1.2 1
This has been revised by replacing "Each full length rod position" with l
"The position of each full length rod" to reflect the wording used in the Westinghouse letter and draft NUREG-045? Pevision 5.
This change does not affect the substance of this specification, is purely editorial and is acceptable.
(6) Action 3.1.3.2.a (Unit 1 only)
The erroneous reference to "3.1.3.1.3.c" is replaced with "3.1.3.1".
This change is purely editorial and is acceptable.
(7) Bases Section 3/4.1.3, " Movable Control Assemblies" This section has been revised by adding a paragraph to describe the basis for Specification 3.1.3.1 actions c. and d. concerning imovable but
4 e
g.-
trippable shutdown or control rods, and includes reference to the Westinghouse letter. The basis states that it is incumbent upon the 1
plant to verify the trippability of the control rods. Trippability mcy be determined by verification of a control system failure, usually caused by an electrical malfunction or a failure associated with the control rod stepping mechanism.
If en imovable rod cannot be verified to be trippable, then it will be assumed to be untrippable and Action a. would apply. This is consistent with the Westinghouse letter and is an appropriate commentary to the corresponding specifications. The new paragraph is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments charge requirerrents with respect to the installation er use of facility compenents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have 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 cffsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. We have previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant bazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
C0FCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (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 Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: May 31,1939
, Principal Contributor: Peter S. Tam
_