ML17354A754
| ML17354A754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17354A752 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801120206 | |
| Download: ML17354A754 (6) | |
Text
~R RE00
~4,
~o Cy 0
0
~O
+w*e+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON> D.C. $)5554001 1.0 In a submittal of February 24.
199?, the Florida Power and Light Company (FPI )
requested approval to reference the approved methodology of WCAP-12945-P, Volumes I-V. the Westinghouse (g) generic Best Estimate (BE) Large Break (LB) loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) analysis evaluation model (EM).
That model.
as supplemented by various submittals through June 1996 was approved for use in a staff safety evaluation dated June 28, 1996 and is referred to below as g BE LBLOCA EM, MOD 7A Revision 1 (Rev. 1).
(approved on June 28, 1996) in licensing documentation for its Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 (Turkey Point) plants.
and apply that methodology to the Turkey Point plant licensing analyses.
In a letter of April 24, 1997.
FPL submitted information to justify use in its initial application of the methodology to Turkey Point of a variant version of the methodology which does not include all the refinements of the as-approved model.
By letter dated December 4.
1997. the licensee provided additional clarifying information which did not change the original "no significant hazards" determination made by the NRC following the February 24.
1997 submittal and April 24, 1997 letter.
1 for reference in Turkey Point licensing documentation and use in Turkey Point licensing LBLOCA analyses.
The staff also performed an analysis specific review of the technical adequacy of the version of the g BE LBLOCA EM used to perform the initial Turkey Point LBLOCA analyses.
980ii20206 971220 PDR ADQCK 05000250 P
~ ~
~
2.1 In its submittal of February 24.
1997.
FPL requested approval to reference WCAP-12945-P (g BE LBLOCA EH HOD 7A Rev. 1) and supporting documents in licensing documentation for its Turkey Point plants.
In its safety evaluation report of June 28, 1996. the staff concluded that this methodology meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46.
and the staff found that g BE LBLOCA EH MOD 7A Rev.
1 (WCAP-12945-P) is acceptable for use in 3 and 4 loop Westinghouse design licensing applications, including reference in plant technical specifications (TS) and core operating limits reports (COLRs).
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 are of 3 loop Westinghouse design with no significant differences from the designs for which the methodology was approved.
Therefore, the staff finds that the g BE LBLOCA EH MOD 7A Rev.
1 (WCAP-12945-P) is acceptable for use in Turkey Point licensing applications, including reference in the Turkey Point plant TS and COLR.
2.2 In its letter of April 24, 1997.
FPL submitted information to justify use in its initial application of the methodology to Turkey Point of a version of the methodology which does not include all the refinements of the as-approved model.
The initial conditions distribution function in the methodology was generated using analyses performed with an earlier version of the methodology (HOD 7), and the power distribution response surface was generated using analyses performed with an earlier version of the methodology (HOD 7A).
In its letter, the licensee referred to a letter of June 13, 1996.
from Hr. N. J.
Liparulo (g) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Attention Frank R. Orr) which justified the adequacy of this variant version of the approved methodology on the basis of the final correction performed entirely with the g BE LBLOCA EH MOD 7A Rev.
1 version.
and proposed to include that reference in the Administrative Controls section of the Turkey Point TS. The proposed TS reference is acceptable because it provides the description of and justification for the version of the methodology used for the initial Turkey Point LBLOCA analyses.
The staff performed an analysis specific review of the variant methodology.
and concluded that the final correction is acceptable because it is performed entirely with the g BE LBLOCA EH MOD 7A Rev.
1 version and the resulting imprecision of the correction is very small.
Mowever, the staff extends its approval of the variant version of the EH only to the initial Turkey Point
3 analyses for as long as they remain applicable per 10 CFR 50.46 requirements and are not superseded by updated analyses.
The small imprecision of the correction must be tracked in Turkey Point 10 CFR 50.46 reports, per paragraph (a)(3)(ii), as a permanent change or error.
For as long as the methodology used for the initial analyses is referenced, reference to the June
- 13. 1996.
letter will be maintained in appropriate licensing documentation (e.g..
TS and/or COLR).
Future analyses using the EN must be performed entirely using the g BE LBLXA EN NOD 7A Rev.
1 version or other fully approved LBLXA EN.
2.3 2lHlSRY From its review.
as discussed in Section 2.1, the staff concludes that the g BE LBLOCA EN HOD 7A Rev.
1 (WCAP-12945-P) is acceptable for use in Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 licensing applications, including reference in the Turkey Point plant TS and COLR.
From its analysis specific review, as discussed in Section 2.2. the staff concludes that the version of the methodology used for the initial Turkey Point analyses is also acceptable.
with the following conditions:
a.
This version of the EN may be referenced only for the initial Turkey Point analyses f'r as long as they remain applicable per 10 CFR 50..46 requirements and are not superseded by updated analyses.
Future analyses using the EN must be performed entirely using the g BE LBLOCA EN NOD 7A, Rev.
1 version or other fully approved LBLOCA EN.
b.
The imprecision of the correction must be tracked in Turkey Point 10 CFR 50.46 reports as a permanent change or error. per 10 CFR 50.46 (a)(3)(iii).
c.
Reference to the June 13, 1996, letter will be maintained in appropriate licensing documentation (e.g..
TS and/or COLR).
The scope of the approval documented in this safety evaluation is applicable to the use of g BE LBLXA EN NOD 7A Rev.
1 for analyses of LBLOCA scenarios from the time of event initiation to the time of stable core quench.
Other uses of this methodology.
such as long term (post-quench) cooling (e.g.,
during ECCS switchover) analyses.
were not specifically requested by the licensee and were therefore not reviewed by the staff.
Use of the EN for such other applications by the licensee must be separately requested and reviewed by the NRC.
2.4 The licensee proposed revising section 6.9.1.7, CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT.
to reference WCAP-12945-P. the US NRC Safety Evaluation Report regarding this WCAP, and the Westinghouse letter dated June 13.
1996, regarding re-analysis work plans using the final best estimate methodology.
Use of the revised methodologies will ensure that values for cycle specific parameters are determined such that all applicable Emergency Core Cooling System limits of the safety analysis are met. Conditions a.
and c. of section 2.3 are met by the licensee by incorporating the appropriate references in the proposed TS changes.
Condition b. is met by following the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 in that this is a permanent change and.
as such.
must be tracked in Turkey Point 10 CFR 50.46 repor ts per 10 CFR 50.46(a)(3)(iii).
In addition, a footnote was added to the TS to reference this safety evaluation.
Incorporating the three additional references in TS is acceptable since it documents the use of an acceptable methodology for large break LOCA analysis.
The staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
3.0 Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendments, the Florida State official had no comments.
4.0 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 (62 FR 30631).
The amendment changes recordkeeping 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 The Commission has concluded.
based on the considerations discussed
- above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the
P public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Cmmission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the eamon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Frank Orr Dated: Decenber 20, 1997