ML16138A779
| ML16138A779 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A778 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9406150179 | |
| Download: ML16138A779 (3) | |
Text
CFdr" REG&j UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 206 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 206 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-47 AND AMENDMENT NO. 203 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1. 2. AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 23, 1994 as supplemented by letters dated April 14, May 11, and May 17 (two letters), 1994, Duke Power Company, et al. (the licensee or DPC) submitted requests for changes to the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The change requested by the letter dated March 23, 1994, would revise TS 6.9.2, "Core Operating Limits Report" to include a reference to a DPC Topical Report describing an analytical method for determining the core operating limits. Specifically, the amendments would add: "(4) DPC-NE-1004A, Nuclear Design Methodology Using CASMO-3/SIMULATE-3P," to TS 6.9.2. The April 14, 1994, letter requested the deletion of the reference to Table 4.4-1 from the TS Table of Contents. This table was removed from the TS by an amendment issued on September 16, 1993.
The letter of May 11, 1994, added the statement:
"The approved methods to determine the core operating limits given in Technical Specification 6.9.1 are specified in the CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT" to TS 6.9.2.
The May 11 and May 17, 1994, letters provided information regarding DPC's transition from the EPRI-NODE-P based methodology to the SIMULATE methodology to determine core operating limits. Revision 1 to the Core Operating Limits Report for Oconee Unit 1, Cycle 16, was submitted by letter dated May 17, 1994, in which the methodology used to calculate each cycle-specific parameter for Oconee 1 Cycle 16 is specified.
The letters of April 14, May 11, and May 17, 1994, provideq additional information that did not change the scope of the March 23, 1994, application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff reviewed Topical Report DPC-NE-1004A and concluded in a Safety Evaluation dated November 23, 1992, that the described nuclear design 9406150179 940608 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
-2 methodology using CASMO-3/SIMULATE-3P is acceptable for performing reload analyses for the DPC B&W 177-assembly cores in the Oconee units. The addition of this approved nuclear design methodology to those referenced in TS 6.9.2 provides an additional method for determining core operating limits such that all applicable limits (e.g., fuel thermal mechanical limits, core thermal hydraulic limits, ECCS limits, nuclear limits such as shutdown margin, and transient and accident analysis limits) of the safety analysis are met.
The revision to TS 6.9.2 requested in the licensee's letter of May 11, 1994, adds a statement that the approved methods used to determine core operating limits are specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
This revision would serve to identify the approved methodology used to determine each core operating limit. The letters of May 11 and May 17, 1994, provide information on DPC's transition from the use of EPRI-NODE-P to the use of SIMULATE nuclear design methodology. In these letters, DPC states its intent to calculate future operating limits using the SIMULATE methodology and its intent not to apply mixed EPRI-NODE-P/SIMULATE methodology to future designs. Future COLRs will also specify the methods used to calculate the operating limits.
On the basis if its review of the licensee's submittals summarized above, the NRC staff finds that the revision to TS 6.9.2 requested in the licensee's letters of March 23 and May 11, 1994, are acceptable. The addition of Topical Report DPC-NE-1004A to the references listed in TS 6.9.2 and the addition of the statement that the methodolgy used to determine each core operating limit will be specified in the COLR is acceptable because the Topical Report has been approved by the NRC for performing reload analyses for the Oconee units and the COLR will identify unequivocally the approved methodology used to determine each core operating limit.
In the period of transition from the EPRI-NODE-P methodology to the SIMULATE methodology, the staff finds that the singular use of EPRI-NODE-P methodology to determine the shutdown margin-restricted limits for Oconee 1, Cycle 16, while all of the other core operating limits were based on SIMULATE methodology, as specified in Revision 1 to the COLR, is acceptable because (1) the EPRI-NODE-P methodology has been approved for calculating the shutdown margin-restricted limits, (2) the resulting values appeared satisfactory and were in the expected range, and (3) the methodology used for each limit would be identified in the COLR.
The licensee's request in the letter of April 14, 1994, to delete the reference to Table 4.4-1 from the TS Table of Contents is acceptable because this table was removed from the TS by an amendment issued on September 16, 1993.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
-3
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has 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 offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 22007 dated April 28, 1994).
Accordingly, the 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 the amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
S.S. Kirslis Date: June 8, 1994