ML17262A914

From kanterella
Revision as of 13:06, 29 June 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Proposed TS 4.3.1 Re Reactor Vessel Matl Surveillance Testing
ML17262A914
Person / Time
Site: Ginna Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 06/22/1992
From:
ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:
Shared Package
ML17262A911 List:
References
NUDOCS 9207060006
Download: ML17262A914 (5)


Text

ATTACEBERFV ARevisetheTechnical Specification pagesasfollows:Remove4.3-14.3-1aInsert4.3-1"92070b000b 920b22PDRADOCK05000244P,.PDR

'4.3ReactorCoolantSstemAlicabilit Appliestosurveillance ofthereactorcoolantsystemanditscomponents.

Toensureoperability ofthereactorcoolantsystemanditscomponents.

Secifications:

4.3.1ReactorVesselMaterialSurveillance Testing4.3.1.1Thereactorvesselmaterialsurveillance specimens shallberemovedandexaminedtodetermine changesintheirmaterialproperties, asrequired.

byAppendixHto10CFR4.3.2Part50.Pressurizer 4.3.2.1Thepressurizer waterlevelshallbeverifiedtobewithinitslimitsatleastonceper12hoursduringpoweroperation andhotshutdown.

Amendment No.4.3-1Proposed ATTACHMENT BINTRODUCTION Theproposedamendment revisesTechnical Specification (TS)4.3.1.1pursuanttoguidanceprovidedinGenericLetter(GL)91-01,"RemovaloftheSchedulefortheWithdrawal ofReactorVesselMaterialSpecimens fromTechnical Specifications",

datedJanuary4,1991.Further,TS4.3.1.2willbedeletedsincethisspecification isimplicitly described intheproposedSpecification 4.3.1.1.Thegenericletterprovidesguidanceforthepreparation ofarequestforalicenseamendment toremovefromtheTechnical Specifications (TS)thescheduleforthewithdrawal ofreactorvesselmaterialsurveillance specimens.

Thecontrolofchangestothisschedulebywayofalicenseamendment tomodifytheTSduplicates therequirements ofSectionII.B.3ofAppendixHtoPart50ofTitle10oftheCodeofFederalRegulations (10CFR).Theserequirements addressthesubmittal ofaproposedwithdrawal

schedule, asspecified in10CFR50.4,andNuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)approvalbeforeitsimplementation.

DISCUSSION Consistent withthegenericletter,thereference totheReactorVesselMaterialSurveillance table,i.e.,GinnaTechnical Specification (TS)4.3.1.1andthecorresponding tableproviding thescheduleforthewithdrawal ofreactorvesselmaterialsurveillance specimens willberevisedandremovedrespectively.

Further,TS4.3.1.2willalsobedeleted.TS4.3.1.2requiresaSummaryTechnical Reportbewritteninaccordance toAppendixHto10CFRPart50.Specification 4.3.1.2isimplicitly described inproposedSpecification 4.3.1.1.AppendixHto10CFRPart50requiresaSummaryTechnical reporttobesubmitted.

Hence,existingSpecification 4.3.1.2duplicates requirements established byAppendixH.Thegenericletteralsorequiresassurance thatthesurveillance specimens arewithdrawn atthepropertime;therefore, thesurveillance requirement sectionassociated withthepressureandtemperature limits,i.e.,TS4.3.1.1,willberevisedtoindicatethatthespecimens beremovedandexaminedtodetermine changesintheirmaterialproperties, asrequired.

byAppendixH.10CFR50.92EVALUATION Theproposedchange,intheGinnaTechnical Specifications, doesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thebasisforthisdetermination isasfollows:Thereisnosignificant.

increasein.theprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated becausetheaccidentconditions andassumptions arenotaffectedbytheproposedTechnical Specification change.Ginna'sReactorVesselMaterialSurveillance Programensurestheavailability afdatatoupdatetheinservice operating temperature andpressurelimits.Thetableidentifying thescheduleforwithdrawal ofthesurveillance specimens willberemoved;

however,proposedTS4.3.1.1willcontinuetorequirethatspecimens beremovedandexaminedtodetermine changesintheirmaterialproperties, asrequiredbyAppendixHto10CFR50.Therefore, noreduction intheoveralleffectiveness oftheprogramwouldresultfromimplementation oftheproposedchange.Xnconclusion, theproposedamendment doesnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanyaccidentpreviously evaluated.

~Thepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously evaluated isnotcreated.Xn,matters relatedtonuclearsafety,allaccidents areboundbypreviousanalyses.

Theproposedchangesdonotaddormodifyanyequipment designnordotheproposedchangesinvolveanyoperational changestoanyplantsystemorLimitingCondition forOperation (LCO).ProposedTS4.3.1.1willcontinuetorequirethatspecimens beremoved.andexaminedtodetermine changesintheirmaterialproperties, asrequiredbyAppendixHto10CFR50.Theabsenceofahardwarechangeorachangetotherequirement ofthetimetoremovethecapsulesforre-evaluation ensuresthattheaccidentinitiators areunaffected, sonouniqueaccidentprobability iscreated.Therefore, theproposedamendment doesnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentpreviously evaluated.

~Theproposedamendment doesnotinvolveasignificant reduction inthemarginofsafetyasdefinedinthebasisforanyTechnical Specification (TS)becausetheresultsoftheaccidentanalyseswhicharedocumented intheUFSARcontinuetoboundoperation undertheproposedchangessothatthereisnosafetymarginreduction.

TheremovaloftheschedulefromtheTechnical Specifications forthewithdrawal ofreactorvesselmaterialsurveillance specimens willnotresultinanylossofregulatory controlbecausechangestothisschedulearecontrolled bytherequirements ofAppendixHto10CFRPart50.Znaddition, toensurethatthesurveillance specimens arewithdrawn atapropertime,thesurveillance requirement sectionrelatedtothepressureandtemperature limits,i.e.,TS4.3.1.1,willcontinuetoindicatethatthespecimens beremovedandexaminedtodetermine changesintheirmaterialproperties, asrequiredbyAppendixH.Therefore, theproposedchangesdonotinvolveasi:gnificant reduction inamarginofsafety.CONCLUSION OnthebasisoftheaboveRG&Ehasdetermined thattheamendment requestdoesnotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration.