ML17254A862: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:AttachmentA1.RevisetheTechnicalSpecificationsbyremovingexistingpages2.1-3and2.1-4andinsertingtheenclosedpage2.1-3.84070500PP44188407i7POP>DOCKpDpPI lit'tt!tlttltt-'t'r Sinceitispossibletohavesomewhatgreaterenthalpyrisehotchannelfactorsatpartpowerthanatfullpowerduetothedeepercontrolbankinsertionwhichispermittedatpartpower,aconservativeallowancehasbeenmadeinobtainingthecurvesinFigure2.1-1foranincreaseinFIHwithdecreasingpowerlevels.Rodwithdrawalblockandloadrunbackoccursbeforereactortripsetpointsarereached.TheReactorControlandProtectiveSystemisdesignedtopreventanyanticipatedcombinationoftransientconditionsforreactorcoolantsystemtemperature,pressureandthermalpowerlevelthatwouldresultintherebeinglessthana95%probabilityata95%confidencelevelthatDNBwouldnotoccur.(2)(1)FSAR,Section3.2.2(2)SafetyEvaluationforR.E.GinnaTransitionto14x14OptimizedFuelAssemblies,WestinghouseElectricCorporation,November1983.2.1-3ftleJ'mendmentNo.March30,1976PROPOSED C~4AttachmentBInpreparationoftheproposedTechnicalSpecificationrelatedtotheuseofWestinghouseOptimizedFuelasareloadfuelforGinna,whichwassubmittedonDecember20,1983,itwasintendedthattheinformationpresentedinTechnicalSpecificationpage2.1-3bedeleted.Thisinformation,theidentificationofnuclearhotchannelfactorswhichformedthebasisfortheprevioussafetylimitcurves,wasnolongercorrectandthecorrectbasiswasidentifiedontheproposedpagechanges.Weunderstandthatbecausethisportionofthechangewasnotexplicitlyidentifiedinoursubmittal,theNRCdidnotapprovethischangeinitsissuanceofAmendmentNo.61datedMay1,1984.Theproposedchangeremediesthisinconsistencybydeletingtheincorrectinformation.Inaddition,foradditionalclarifi-cation,arevisedreferencetotheoptimizedfuelanalysis,isprovided.Theproposedchangemerelycorrectsanadministrativeinconsistencyinthebasis.Itdoesnotreviseanyexistinglimitsbutisbasedonpreviouslyapprovedanalyses.,I'IIhJh444hlI'4lL C~1f.IbAIII1t AttachmentCInaccordancewith10CFR50.91,thischangetotheTechnicalSpecificationshasbeenevaluatedagainstthreecriteriatodetermineiftheoperationofthefacilityinaccordancewiththeproposedamendmentwould:1.involveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated;or2.createthepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviouslyevaluated;or3.involveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.Asoutlinedbelow,RochesterGasandElectricsubmitsthattheissuesassociatedwiththisamendmentrequestareoutsidethecriteriaof10CFR50.91,andtherefore,anosignificanthazardsfindingiswarranted.Thechangesarealladministrativeinnature.AmendmentNo.61approveduseofWestinghouse'ptimizedfuelbasedonthe,analysisandproposedTechnical'pecificationswhichweresub-"mitted.Weunderstandthat'ecausethisportion:ofthe'hangewas'otexplicitlyidentifiedinoursubmittal,theNRCdidnotapprovethischangeinits'issuanceofAmendmentNo.61datedMay1,1984.Theproposedchangeremediesthisinconsistencybydeletingtheincorrectinformation.Inaddition,foradditionalclarifi-cation,arevisedreferencetotheoptimizedfuelanalysis,isprovided.Theproposedchangemerelycorrectsanadministrativeinconsistencyinthebasis.Itdoesnotreviseanyexistinglimitsbutisbasedonpreviouslyapprovedanalyses.TheproposedchangesareconformedtotheCommission'sexample(i)ofchangesthatdonotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsideration.
{{#Wiki_filter:Attachment A1.RevisetheTechnical Specifications byremovingexistingpages2.1-3and2.1-4andinserting theenclosedpage2.1-3.84070500PP44188407i7POP>DOCKpDpPI lit'tt!tlttltt-'t'r Sinceitispossibletohavesomewhatgreaterenthalpyrisehotchannelfactorsatpartpowerthanatfullpowerduetothedeepercontrolbankinsertion whichispermitted atpartpower,aconservative allowance hasbeenmadeinobtaining thecurvesinFigure2.1-1foranincreaseinFIHwithdecreasing powerlevels.Rodwithdrawal blockandloadrunbackoccursbeforereactortripsetpointsarereached.TheReactorControlandProtective Systemisdesignedtopreventanyanticipated combination oftransient conditions forreactorcoolantsystemtemperature, pressureandthermalpowerlevelthatwouldresultintherebeinglessthana95%probability ata95%confidence levelthatDNBwouldnotoccur.(2)(1)FSAR,Section3.2.2(2)SafetyEvaluation forR.E.GinnaTransition to14x14Optimized FuelAssemblies, Westinghouse ElectricCorporation, November1983.2.1-3ftleJ'mendment No.March30,1976PROPOSED C~4Attachment BInpreparation oftheproposedTechnical Specification relatedtotheuseofWestinghouse Optimized FuelasareloadfuelforGinna,whichwassubmitted onDecember20,1983,itwasintendedthattheinformation presented inTechnical Specification page2.1-3bedeleted.Thisinformation, theidentification ofnuclearhotchannelfactorswhichformedthebasisfortheprevioussafetylimitcurves,wasnolongercorrectandthecorrectbasiswasidentified ontheproposedpagechanges.Weunderstand thatbecausethisportionofthechangewasnotexplicitly identified inoursubmittal, theNRCdidnotapprovethischangeinitsissuanceofAmendment No.61datedMay1,1984.Theproposedchangeremediesthisinconsistency bydeletingtheincorrect information.
Inaddition, foradditional clarifi-cation,arevisedreference totheoptimized fuelanalysis, isprovided.
Theproposedchangemerelycorrectsanadministrative inconsistency inthebasis.Itdoesnotreviseanyexistinglimitsbutisbasedonpreviously approvedanalyses.,
I'IIhJh444hlI'4lL C~1f.IbAIII1t Attachment CInaccordance with10CFR50.91,thischangetotheTechnical Specifications hasbeenevaluated againstthreecriteriatodetermine iftheoperation ofthefacilityinaccordance withtheproposedamendment would:1.involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated; or2.createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously evaluated; or3.involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Asoutlinedbelow,Rochester GasandElectricsubmitsthattheissuesassociated withthisamendment requestareoutsidethecriteriaof10CFR50.91,andtherefore, anosignificant hazardsfindingiswarranted.
Thechangesarealladministrative innature.Amendment No.61approveduseofWestinghouse'ptimized fuelbasedonthe,analysisandproposedTechnical'pecifications whichweresub-"mitted.Weunderstand that'ecause thisportion:ofthe'hange was'otexplicitly identified inoursubmittal, theNRCdidnotapprovethischangeinits'issuance ofAmendment No.61datedMay1,1984.Theproposedchangeremediesthisinconsistency bydeletingtheincorrect information.
Inaddition, foradditional clarifi-cation,arevisedreference totheoptimized fuelanalysis, isprovided.
Theproposedchangemerelycorrectsanadministrative inconsistency inthebasis.Itdoesnotreviseanyexistinglimitsbutisbasedonpreviously approvedanalyses.
Theproposedchangesareconformed totheCommission's example(i)ofchangesthatdonotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.
4~S4Tt~khttftILltPJk}}
4~S4Tt~khttftILltPJk}}

Revision as of 14:02, 29 June 2018

Proposed Tech Specs,Deleting Pages 2.1-3 & 2.1-4 & Inserting New Page 2.1-3 to Provide Consistency
ML17254A862
Person / Time
Site: Ginna Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 07/17/1984
From:
ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17254A856 List:
References
NUDOCS 8407240218
Download: ML17254A862 (7)


Text

Attachment A1.RevisetheTechnical Specifications byremovingexistingpages2.1-3and2.1-4andinserting theenclosedpage2.1-3.84070500PP44188407i7POP>DOCKpDpPI lit'tt!tlttltt-'t'r Sinceitispossibletohavesomewhatgreaterenthalpyrisehotchannelfactorsatpartpowerthanatfullpowerduetothedeepercontrolbankinsertion whichispermitted atpartpower,aconservative allowance hasbeenmadeinobtaining thecurvesinFigure2.1-1foranincreaseinFIHwithdecreasing powerlevels.Rodwithdrawal blockandloadrunbackoccursbeforereactortripsetpointsarereached.TheReactorControlandProtective Systemisdesignedtopreventanyanticipated combination oftransient conditions forreactorcoolantsystemtemperature, pressureandthermalpowerlevelthatwouldresultintherebeinglessthana95%probability ata95%confidence levelthatDNBwouldnotoccur.(2)(1)FSAR,Section3.2.2(2)SafetyEvaluation forR.E.GinnaTransition to14x14Optimized FuelAssemblies, Westinghouse ElectricCorporation, November1983.2.1-3ftleJ'mendment No.March30,1976PROPOSED C~4Attachment BInpreparation oftheproposedTechnical Specification relatedtotheuseofWestinghouse Optimized FuelasareloadfuelforGinna,whichwassubmitted onDecember20,1983,itwasintendedthattheinformation presented inTechnical Specification page2.1-3bedeleted.Thisinformation, theidentification ofnuclearhotchannelfactorswhichformedthebasisfortheprevioussafetylimitcurves,wasnolongercorrectandthecorrectbasiswasidentified ontheproposedpagechanges.Weunderstand thatbecausethisportionofthechangewasnotexplicitly identified inoursubmittal, theNRCdidnotapprovethischangeinitsissuanceofAmendment No.61datedMay1,1984.Theproposedchangeremediesthisinconsistency bydeletingtheincorrect information.

Inaddition, foradditional clarifi-cation,arevisedreference totheoptimized fuelanalysis, isprovided.

Theproposedchangemerelycorrectsanadministrative inconsistency inthebasis.Itdoesnotreviseanyexistinglimitsbutisbasedonpreviously approvedanalyses.,

I'IIhJh444hlI'4lL C~1f.IbAIII1t Attachment CInaccordance with10CFR50.91,thischangetotheTechnical Specifications hasbeenevaluated againstthreecriteriatodetermine iftheoperation ofthefacilityinaccordance withtheproposedamendment would:1.involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated; or2.createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously evaluated; or3.involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Asoutlinedbelow,Rochester GasandElectricsubmitsthattheissuesassociated withthisamendment requestareoutsidethecriteriaof10CFR50.91,andtherefore, anosignificant hazardsfindingiswarranted.

Thechangesarealladministrative innature.Amendment No.61approveduseofWestinghouse'ptimized fuelbasedonthe,analysisandproposedTechnical'pecifications whichweresub-"mitted.Weunderstand that'ecause thisportion:ofthe'hange was'otexplicitly identified inoursubmittal, theNRCdidnotapprovethischangeinits'issuance ofAmendment No.61datedMay1,1984.Theproposedchangeremediesthisinconsistency bydeletingtheincorrect information.

Inaddition, foradditional clarifi-cation,arevisedreference totheoptimized fuelanalysis, isprovided.

Theproposedchangemerelycorrectsanadministrative inconsistency inthebasis.Itdoesnotreviseanyexistinglimitsbutisbasedonpreviously approvedanalyses.

Theproposedchangesareconformed totheCommission's example(i)ofchangesthatdonotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

4~S4Tt~khttftILltPJk