ML17333A258
| ML17333A258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cook  |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17333A257 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9601170074 | |
| Download: ML17333A258 (4) | |
Text
~0 Rf0(
+4 Po C
~
O IA0 e
Y.
~o~
~
++*++
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 FAC LITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-58 AND AMENDMENT NO.
190 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-4 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 May 25, 1995, the Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TS) appended to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-58 and DPR-74 for the Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2.
The proposed amendments would incorporate a
cycle-and burnup-dependent F0 penalty (F ) in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The heat flux hot channel factor, F0(z), is the maximum local heat flux on the surface of a fuel rod at core elevation z, divided by the average fuel rod heat flux.
For D.C. Cook, F,(z) is shown to be within its limits by performing periodic measurements every 31 effective full power-days (EFPD).
The TS take into account the possibility that F0(z) may increase between surveillances and require comparison of the resulting maximum F,(z) value to the maximum F0(z) determined from the previous measurement.
If the maximum F,(z) has increased since the previous determination of F0(z), the TS allow two options: either the current Fq(z) must be increased by an additional 2 percent to account for further increases in F0(z) before the next surveillance, or the surveillance period must be reduced to every seven EFPD.
The F0(z) penalty of 2 percent was based on the Westinghouse assumption that F, would change by no more than 2 percent between monthly flux maps.
More
- recently, some Westinghouse-designed cores have experienced increases in the measured F0(z) as high as 5 to 6 percent between monthly flux maps over certain burnup ranges.
Therefore, for those cores which are predicted to have larger increases in F,(z) over certain burnup ranges, a larger F
penalty should be provided on a cycle-specific basis.
The NRC approved Revision 1 to WCAP-10216-P-A, "Relaxation of Constant Axial Offset Control F0 Surveillance Technical Specification," (proprietary),
on November 26, 1993, which specified two options for incorporating changes in the TS to accommodate penalty factors greater than 2 percent.
The larger penalty could be included in the plant COLR as a replacement for the current 2
9601i70074 960104 PDR ADOCK 05000315 P
PDR I
percent'standard value, thereby allowing it to be both cycle-dependent and burnup-depen'dent.
Alternatively, the additional penalty in excess of 2 percent may be factored into the V(z) function, which is a cycle-dependent function that accounts for power distribution transients encountered during normal operation.
The V(z) function is also provided in the COLR.
The licensee has chosen to incorporate a burnup-dependent F
in the D.C. Cook COLR.
In addition, in accordance with an NRC request, PCAP-10216-P-A, Revision 1A, February 1994 (proprietary) will be incorporated in TS Section 6.9.1.9.2 as the approved reference for the F~ surveillance and the acceptance of placing F
in the COLR.
The proposed revisions to the F~ surveillance TS in the D.C. Cook units for power distribution control are acceptable.
These revisions would allow the incorporation of a larger penalty (F ) to account for F (z) increases greater than 2 percent between measurements.
This penalty may Le incorporated in the plant COLR, as a burnup-dependent
- value, and will be calculated with NRC-approved methods which will ensure that valves for cycle-specific parameters are established consistent with plant design bases and safety limits.
The approved version of WCAP-10216-P, Rev.
1 will be included in Section 6.9. 1.9.2 of the Administrative Controls Section of the TS to allow for incorporating the penalty factor in the COLR.
- 3. 0 STATE CGNSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Michigan State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments,.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONS IDERATIO The amendments change requirements with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The 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 consider ation and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 35080).
The amendments also change record-keeping or reporting requirements.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (c)(10)
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 staff 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 well be conducted in compliance with the Commission s regulations, and (3) the zssuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. Kopp Date:
Januax.y 4, 1996
'