ML17264A338

Application for Amend to License DPR-18,revising TS to Incorporate Ref to Methodology for Determining Ltop Limits Into Administrative Controls Section for RCS PT Limits Rept

ML17264A338
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	02/09/1996
From:	MECREDY R C ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17264A337	List: ML17264A336 ML17264A338 ML17264A340 ML17264A341
References
NUDOCS 9602130368
Download: ML17264A338 (8)

Text

UNITEDSTATESOFAlvKRICANUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMSSIONIntheMatterofRochesterGasandElectricCorporation(R.E.GinnaNuclearPowerPlant))))DocketNo.50-244)APPLICATIONFORAMENDMENTTPERATINLIENKPursuanttoSection50.90oftheregulationsoftheU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC),RochesterGasandElectricCorporation(RGB),holderofFacilityOperatingLicenseNo.DPR-18,herebyr'equeststhattheTechnicalSpecificationssetforthinAppendixAtothatlicense,beamended.ThisrequestforchangeistoincorporatereferencetothemethodologyfordeterminingLowTemperatureOverpressureProtection(LTOP)limitsintotheAdministrativeControlssectionfortheReactorCoolantSystem(RCS)PressureandTemperatureLimitsReport(PTLR).Adescriptionoftheamendmentrequest,necessarybackgroundinformation,justificationoftherequestedchanges,andnosignificanthazardsandenvironmentalconsiderationsareprovidedinAttachmentI.Thisevaluationdemonstratesthattheproposedchangesdonotinvolveasignificantchangeinthetypesorasignificantincreaseintheamountsofeffluentsoranychangeintheauthorizedpowerlevelofthefacility.Theproposedchangesalsodonotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsideration.9b02i303b8960209PDRADQCK05000244PPOR AmarkedupcopyoftheGinnaStationTechnicalSpecificationswhichshowtherequestedchangesissetforthinAttachmentII.TheproposedrevisedtechnicalspecificationsareprovidedinAttachmentIII.AnevaluationoftheLTOPlimitsusingtheproposedmethodologyisprovidedinAttachmentIV.WHEREFORE,ApplicantrespectfullyrequeststhatFacilityOperatingLicenseNo.DPR-18,andAttachmentAtothatlicense,beamendedintheformattachedheretoasAttachmentIII.RochesterGasandElectricCorporationByRobertC.MecreVicePresidentNuclearOperationsSubscribedandsworntobeforemeonthis9thdayofFebruary1996.NotaryPuicJOANNES.GORMANNotaryPublicintheStateofNewYorkOrleansCountyCommissionExpiresNov.19 I(I1V~)PnFT':ilVv'i'(kA',ifld AttachmentIR.E.GinnaNuclearPowerPlantLicenseAmendmentRequestMethodologyforLowTemperatureOverpressureProtection(LTOP)LimitsThisattachmentprovidesadescriptionofthelicenseamendmentrequest(LAR)andthenecessaryjustificationstosupportincorporationofthemethodologyfordeterminingLTOPlimitsintotheAdministrativeControlssectionfortheReactorCoolantSystem(RCS)PressureandTemperatureLimitsReport(PTLR).Thisattachmentisdividedintosixsectionsasfollows.SectionAsummarizesallchangestotheGinnaStationTechnicalSpecificationswhileSectionBprovidesthebackgroundandhistoryassociatedwiththechangesbeingrequested.SectionCprovidesthejustificationsassociatedwiththeseproposedchanges.AnosignificanthazardsconsiderationevaluationandenvironmentalconsiderationoftherequestedchangestotheGinnaStationTechnicalSpecificationsareprovidedinSectionsDandE,respectively.SectionFlistsallreferencesusedinthisattachment.A.DESCRIPTIONOFTECHNICALSPECIFICATIONCHANGESThisLARproposestorevisetheGinnaStationTechnicalSpecificationstoincorporatereferencetothemethodologyfordeterminingLTOPsetpoints.ThechangeissummarizedbelowandshowninAttachmentII.AdministrativeControls5.6.6ItemcwillberevisedtoreferencethemethodologyfordeterminingLTOPlimitsandtodeletereferencetoAmendmentNo.48withrespecttoLTOPlimits.

B.BACKGROUNDDuringtheconversiontoimprovedstandardtechnicalspecificationsforGinnaStation,RGBhadproposedtorelocatetheLTOPandRCStemperatureandpressurelimitstothePTLR(Ref.1).AssociatedwiththischangewastheadditionofareferencetotheAdministrativeControlssectionoftechnicalspecificationsrelatedtothePTLRdocumentingthemethodologyusedforallchangestotheselimits.However,theproposedmethodologywouldbe"new"withrespecttodeterminationofboththeLTOPandRCStemperatureandpressurelimitsatGinnaStation.Duetotimeconstraints,RGBinformedtheNRCthatuseofthisnewmethodologywouldbeburdensomeandinstead,RG&Ewishedtoretaintheexistingvalues.TheNRCagreedwiththisconcernandallowedtheexistinglimitstoberelocatedtothePTLRbutrequiredchangestotheselimitstobereviewedandapprovedbytheNRCasdocumentedinReference2.However,thedeterminationthatGinnaStationneededtoretaintheexistingvalueswaswithrespecttotheRCSpressureandtemperaturelimitsthatareincludedinthePTLRandnottheLTOPlimits.Assuch,thisLARrequeststhattheLTOPmethodologybereviewedandapprovedbytheNRCstafFsuchthatitcanbereferencedwithintheAdministrativeControlssectionofthetechnicalspecifications.AnychangestotheRCSpressureandtemperaturelimitsincludedinthePTLRwillstillrequireNRCreviewandapproval.ItshouldbenotedthattheLTOPmethodologybeingproposedbyRGEcEhadreceivedinitialNRCreviewsincethemethodologyprovidedinReference1incorporatesallcommentswhichRG@Ehadreceivedtodate.AttachmentIVcontainstheevaluationoftheLTOPlimitsatGinnaStationusingthisproposedmethodology.C.JUSTIFICATIONOFCHANGESThissectionprovidesthejustificationforallchangesdescribedinSectionAaboveandshowninAttachmentII.Thejustificationsareorganizedbasedonwhetherthechangeis:morerestrictive(M),lessrestrictive(L),administrative(A),ortherequirementisrelocated(R).Thejustificationslistedbelowarealsoreferencedinthetechnicalspecification(s)whichareaffected(seeAttachmentII).

C.~dA.lAdministrativeControlsSection5.6.6.cisrevisedtostatethat"theanalyticalmethodsusedtodeterminetheLTOPlimitsshallbethosepreviouslyreviewedbytheNRC"versusthe"LTOPlimitsshallbethosepreviouslyreviewedandapprovedbytheNRCinAmendmentNo.48."ThischangeisadministrativeinnaturesincetheLTOPlimitswerepreviouslyrelocatedfromtechnicalspecificationstothePTLR.TheonlychangebeingrequestedisthatallfuturechangestotheseLTOPlimitsmustbeperformedinaccordancewithNRCapprovedmethodologyinsteadofrequiringalicenseamendment.ThechangeisalsoconsistentwithNUREG-1431.Therearenotanymorerestrictive(M),lessrestrictive(L),orrelocated(R)changesassociatedwiththisLAR.D.SIGNIFICANT~ARDSCONSIDERATIONEVALUATION,TheproposedchangestotheGinnaStationTechnicalSpecificationsasidentifiedinSectionAandjustifiedinSectionChavebeenevaluatedwithrespectto10CFR50.92(c)andshowntonotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsiderationasdescribedbelow.ThissectionisorganizedbasedonSectionCabove.D.lEvalitinfAmini.rivehanesTheadministrativechangesdiscussedinSection8.3donotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsiderationasdiscussedbelow:OperationofGinnaStationinaccordancewiththeproposedchangesdoesnotinvolveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated.TheproposedchangesonlyrequirethatfutureLTOPlimitsbedevelopedusingNRCapprovedmethodologyasspecifiedwithintheAdministrativeControlssectionanddonotinvolveanytechnicalchanges.Assuch,thesechangesareadministrativeinnatureanddonotimpactinitiatorsoranalyzedeventsorassumedmitigationofaccidentortransientevents.Therefore,thesechangesdonotinvolveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyanalyzed.

~$~Il~IOperationofGinnaStationinaccordancewiththeproposedchangesdoesnotcreatethepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviouslyevaluated.Theproposedchangesdonotinvolveaphysicalalterationoftheplant(i.e.,nonewordifferenttypeofequipmentwillbeinstalled)orchangesinthemethodsgoverningnormalplantoperation.Theproposedchangeswillnotimposeanynewordifferentrequirements.Thus,thischangedoesnotcreatethepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccident.previouslyevaluated.OperationofGinnaStationinaccordancewiththeproposedchangesdoesnotinvolveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.TheproposedchangeswillnotreduceamarginofplantsafetybecausethechangesdonotimpactanysafetyanalysisassumptionsotherthanrequiringfutureevaluationsofLTOPlimitstobeperformedinaccordancewithNRCapprovedmethodology.Thesechangesareadministrativeinnature.Assuch,noquestionofsafetyisinvolved,andthechangedoesnotinvolveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.Basedupontheaboveinformation,ithasbeendeterminedthattheproposedadministrativechangestotheGinnaStationTechnicalSpecificationsdonotinvolveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,doesnotcreatethepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,anddoesnotinvolveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.Therefore,itisconcludedthattheproposedchangesmeettherequirementsof10CFR50.92(c)anddonotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsideration.E.ENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATIONRGBhasevaluatedtheproposedchangesanddeterminedthat:ThechangesdonotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsiderationasdocumentedinSectionDabove;Thechangesdonotinvolveasignificantchangeinthetypesorsignificantincreaseintheamountsofanyeffluentsthatmaybereleasedoffsitesincenospecificationsrelatedtooffsitereleasesareaffected;andThechangesdonotinvolveasignificantincreaseinindividualorcumulativeoccupationalradiationexposuresincenonewordifferenttypeofequipmentarerequiredtobeinstalledasaresultofthisLARAccordingly,theproposedchangesmeettheeligibilitycriteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).Therefore,pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),anenvironmentalassessmentoftheproposedchangesisnotrequired.4 F.REFERENCESLetterfromR.RMecredy,RG&;E,toA.A.Johnson,NRC,

Subject:

TechnicalSpecijicationsImprovementProgram,ReactorCoolantSystem(RCS)PressureandTemperatureLimitsReport(PTLR),datedDecember8,1995.LetterfromL.B.Marsh,NRC,toR.R.Mecredy,RG&;E,RL.Ginna-AcceptanceforReferencingofPressureTemperalmeLimitsReport(TAC¹M92320),datedDecember26,1995.-5-