ML17328A398
| ML17328A398 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17328A397 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008300086 | |
| Download: ML17328A398 (9) | |
Text
~P,R RECT A00 I
.p
+YP*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMEN~T NO.
5 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
OPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
3 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-74 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY DONALD C.
COOK NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-315 AND 50-316
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 16, 1990, (Ref. 1), the Indiana Miichigan Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit No.',
The proposed changes would modify specifications having cycle-specific paramIeter limits by replacing the values of those limits with a reference to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) for the values of those limits.
The proposed changes also include the addition of the COLR to the Definitions section and to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls sections of the TS.
Guidance on the proposed changes was developed by NRC on the basis of the review of a lead-plant proposal subIIIitted on the Oconee plant docket by Duke Power Company.
This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16, dated October 4, 1988, (Ref. 2).
In addition, the licensee proposed other Technical Specification changes not related to Generic Letter 88-16.
These changes have also been reviewed.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Technical~Secification Changes to Implement Generic Letter 88-16 The licensee's proposed changes to the TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below.
(1)
The Definitions section of the TS was modified to include a definition of the Core Operating Limits Report that requires cycle/reload-specific parameter limits to be established on a unit-specific basis in accordance
>>ith NRC approved methodologies that maintain the limits of the safety analysis.
The definition notes that plant operation within these limits is addressed by individual specifications.
9008300086 900820 PDR ADOCK 05000315
~
P PDQ (2)
The following specifications were revised to replace the values of cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the COLR that provides these limits.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(g)
(h)
Specif ication 3/4.1.1.4 The modera tor tempera ture coeffici ent (HTC) 1 imits for thi s specification and surveillance requirement are specified in the COLR.
Specification 3/4.1.3.3 The rod drop time fully withdrawn position for this specification is specified in the COLR.
Specification 3/4.1.3.4 The shutdown bank insertion limit for this specification and surveillance requirement is specified in the COLR.
Specif'ication 3/4.1.3.5 The control bank insertion limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
Specification 3/4.2.1 The axial flux difference limits for this specification and surveillance requirement are specified in the COLR.
Specification 3/4.2.2 The heat flux hot channel factor (F
) limit at rated thermal power and the normalized F
limit as a fuIIction of core height (K(Z)) for this specification aw e specified in the COLR.
Specification 3/4.2.3 The nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (F-delta-H) limit at rated thermal power and the power factor multiplier for this specification are specified in the COLR.
Specification 3/4.2.6 The allowable power lever (APL) limit and the transient xenon effect on F
as a function of core height (V(Z)) for this specification are specIfied ir the COLR.
a I ~
Q
\\ l (i)
Specification 3.1.3.1 This Moveable Control Assemblies
- Group Height Specification's action statement was revised to reference the control rod insertion limits specified in the COLR.
The affected bases of the specifications have been modified by the licensee to include appropriate reference to the COLR.
Based on our
- review, we conclude that the changes to these bases are acceptable.
I (3)
Specification 6.9.1. 11 was added to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS.
This specification requires that the COLR be submitted, upon issuance, to the NRC Document Control Des'ith copies to the Regional Administrator and Resident Inspector.
The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle.
Furthermore, these specifications require that the values of these limits be established using NRC approved methodologies and be consistent with all applicable limits of the safety analysis.
The approved methodologies are the fol lowing:
(a)
WCAP-9727-P-A, "Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation methodology,"
July 1985 (Westinghouse Proprietary),
(b)
WCAP-8385, "Power Distribution Control and Load Following Procedures-Topical Report," September 1974 (Westinghouse Proprietary),
(c)
WCAP-10216-P-A, Part B, "Relaxation of Constant Axial Offset Control/F Surveillance Technical Specification,"
June 1983 (Westinghluse Proprietary),
(d)
WCAP-10266-P-A Rev. 2, "The 1981 Version of Westinghouse Evaluation Yodel Using BASH Code,"
March 1987 (Westinghouse Proprietary).
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or remaining part of a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
On the basis of the review of the above items, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in the hRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits in the TS.
Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are established using NRC approved methodologies, the NRC staff concludes that this change is administrative in nature and there is no impact on pl'ant safety as a
consequence.
Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed changes are acceptable.
i-L As part of the implementation of Generic Letter 88-16, the staff has also reviewed a sample COLR that was provided by the licensee.
On the basis of this review, the staff concludes that the format and content of the sample COLR are acceptable.
2.2 Other Technical S~ecificatio~nChan ea In addition to the TS changes to implement a
COLR, the licensee requested a
number of other TS changes.
Changes were requested to the action statement and surveillance requirements of TS 3/4.1.1.4 regarding the moderator temperature coefficient (NTC).
The action statement is being elaborated and the survei l'lance requirements are being revised to incorporate a 300 ppm surveillance acceptance criterion by reference to the COLR.
The use of the surveillance criterion at 300 ppm and the direct comparison of the beginning of life {BOL) surveillance to test results permits the deletion of Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.4.1, which previously had required an extrapolation in order to permit direct comparison with test results.
Also, the deletion of Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.4.1 is acceptable because the comparison of ca1culations with test results would of necessity iniclude the proper extrapolations and compensations in order to allow for a valid comparison.
Therefore, this change is of minor safety significance.
Based on our review, we conclude that these changes to TS 3/4.1.1.4 are acceptable for D.C Cook Unit 1.
Ice note that the changes to implement a
COLR for D. C.
Cook Unit 2 were approved in amendment No.
122 issued on Yiay 23, 1990.
Me also conclude that the deletion of Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.4.1 for D.
C. Cook, Unit 2 is acceptable for the reasons outlined above for D.
C. Cook, Unit 1.
TS 3.1.3.1 on Yoveable Control Assemblies - Group Height is being revised by removing the reference to a figure on rod bank step position as a function of power arid referencing the COLR.
This change is administrative arid, therefore, is acceptable.
TS 6.9.2 or Special Reports is being revised so that 6.9.2g refers to the VTC special report reouired by TS 3.1.1.4.
In addition, Item 6.9.2h which states "Deleted" is being deleted.
These changes are admiriistrative in nature
- and, therefore, are acceptable.
Me have reviewed the request by the Indiana and Yiichigan Power Company to modify the Technical Specifications of the Donald C.
Cook Yuclear Plant Unit Ho.
1 that would remove the specific values of some cycle-dependent parameters from the specifications and place the values in a Core Operating Limits Report that would be referenced by the specifications.
Based on this review, we conclude that these Technical Specification modifications are acceptable and are in accordance with the provisions of Generic Letter 88-16, lie have also reviewed non-Core Operating Limits Report TS changes and conclude that these chanoes are acceptable.
In particular, we conclude that deletion of Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.4.1 for D. C. Cook, Unit 2 is also acceptable.
- 3. 0 ENVIRONl1EHTAL CONS IDERATION These amendments involve changes in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restr icted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
We have determined that the amiendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and nc 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 Coomission has previously issued a
proposed finding that these amendments involve,no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
In
~addition, these amendments involve changes to reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (c)(10).
Pursuant tv 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasorable 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, (3) and the issuance of the amendments will riot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter (AEP:NRC:1077B) from N. P. Alexich (IHPC) to NRC, dated April 16, 1990.
2.
Generic Letter 88-16, "Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications,"
dated October 4, 1988.
Date: August 20, 1990 Principal Contributor:
D. Fieno, SRXB
g-.Jg
~
'l I