ML17352A814
| ML17352A814 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17352A812 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410190075 | |
| Download: ML17352A814 (4) | |
Text
~8 RE011 PO Cy 0
+
gO
+p*y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION LAT D 0
MENDMENT NO TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENS NO.
DPR-3 ND AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT NOS.
3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS.
50-250 AND 50-251
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By [[letter::L-94-128, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-31 & DPR-41,modifying TS 3.1.3.6, Reactivity Control Sys CR Insertion Limits, 3/4.2.2, Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor - Fq(Z) & 6.9.1.7, COLR & Associated Bases,Per GL 88-16.COLRs Encl|letter dated July 19, 1994]], Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, to relocate two cycle-specific curves from TS to the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) in accordance with NRC's Generic Letter (GL) 88-16, "Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications" dated October 4, 1988.
TS 6.0 "Administrative Controls" would be revised to reflect the addition of the curves to the COLR.
Consistent with the proposed
- changes, TS would also be revised editorially.
The curves to be relocated include the Rod Bank Insertion Limits versus Thermal Power curve and the K(Z) Normalized F~(Z) as a Function of Core Height curve.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION Amendments 156 and 150 dated November 12, 1993, relocated cycle-specific parameter limits from the TS to the COLR following the guidance of Generic Letter 88-16.
This amendment request would relocate additional parameters from TS to the COLR.
The proposed changes to the TS are in accordance. with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16-and are addressed below.
(a)
TS Figure 3. 1-2, which specifies the Rod Bank Insertion Limits Versus Thermal
- Power, would be relocated to the COLR.
TS 3. 1.3.6 would be modified to include appropriate reference to the COLR.
(b)
TS Figure 3.2-2, which specifies K(Z) Normalized F~(Z) as a
Function of Core Height, would be relocated to the COLR.
TS 3.2.2, Heat Flux Hot Channel
- Factor, would be modified to include appropriate reference to the COLR.
Other TS references to Figure 3.2-2 would be modified to reference K(Z) and/or the COLR.
9410190075 941012 PDR
- DOCK 05000250I P
(c)
TS 6.9. 1.7, Core Operating Limits Report, would be modified to specify the following previously NRC-approved analytical methods used to determine the K(Z) curve.
WCAP-9220-P-A, Rev.
1, "Westinghouse ECCS Evaluation Hodel-1981 Version," February 1982.
WCAP-9561-P-A, ADD. 3, Rev.
1, "BART A-1: A Computer Code for the Best Estimate Analysis of Reflood Transients - Special Report:
Thimble Modeling W ECCS Evaluation Model."
TS 6.9. 1.7, Core Operating Limits Report, would also be modified to specify the previously NRC-approved analytical methods of WCAP-9272-P-A, "Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology," July 1985, to determine the Rod Bank Insertion Limits.
Submittal of the COLR to the NRC would be changed from "30 days after implementation" to "upon issuance."
This provides the COLR to the NRC staff at an earlier time.
Other administrative changes are proposed to reflect the above changes to TS.
A refer ence to the individual specifications that are addressed by the COLR was added to TS 6.9. 1.7 following discussion with the licensee's staff purely as an administrative aid.
In addition to the above
- changes, TS Basis 3/4. 1.3, Movable Control Assemblies, would be changed to redefine the maximum position indication requirement as the group demand counter indication of "231 steps" rather than the currently specified 228 steps.
The 'full out position will be defined in the Rod Bank Insertion Limit curve which would be relocated to the COLR.
As previously stated, this curve is developed using the NRC-approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, "Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Hethodology" and the full out position could be as much as 231 steps.
The NRC letters approving the WCAP methodologies and finding these WCAPs acceptable for referencing in license applications were as follows:
WCAP 9561',
Addendum 3, Revision 1 - Letter dated 8/25/86, Rossi to Rahe WCAP 9273
- Letter dated 5/28/85, Thomas to Rahe WCAP 9220, Revision 1
- Letter dated 12/1/81, Hiller to Rahe On the basis of its review, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee's proposed TS changes to relocate cycle-specific parameter limi,ts to the COLR are consistent with GL 88-16.
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 staff finds that the proposed COLR changes are consistent with 10 CFR 50.36 and are acceptable.
In addition, the editorial changes and the change to the basis are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendments,
.the Florida State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve changes to 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 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 39587).
The amendments also involve changes to recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria 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 Based on the staff evaluation in Section 2.0 above, the staff concludes that the proposed Technical Specifications changes are acceptable.
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.
Principle Contributors:
R. Croteau, PD II-2, DRPE T. Huang,
- SRXB, DE DATE: October 12, 1994
er