ML18025B563
| ML18025B563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18025B561 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106250199 | |
| Download: ML18025B563 (6) | |
Text
"<eo 0
Cy A0O I
cO
++*++
i UNITED STATES t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY.COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATI'ON'BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
67 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO.
DPR-52 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWS'ERRY NUCL'EAR PLANT, UNIT NO; 2
DOCKET NO. 50-260 1.0 2.0 Introduction By letter dated February 20, 1981 (TVA BFNP TS 154) the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee or TVA} requested changes to the Techni'cal Specifications (Appendix A} appended to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-52 for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2.
The proposed amendment and revised Techni'cal Specifi'cations would remove the power spiking penalty from the spectfied linear heat generation rate (LHGR}
for 8x8, Bx8R and P8x8R fuel assemblies in the Unit 2 core.
In support of the application, TVA submitted an addenda prepared By the General Electri'c Company (GE), fo the most recent supplemental reload licensing submittal for Unit 2<'>>.
Discussion By letter dated June 19, 1978 from Darrell G. Eisenhut to Richard Gridley, we provided the General Electric Company (GE) the results of the staff's safety evaluation of GE's revised analytical procedures to account for effects of fuel densification power spiking in connecti'on wi'th core safety analyses.
As a result of our review, we determined that the revised analytical procedures would adequately account for the effects of fuel densification power spiking and provide the technical basis for deleting the fuel densification power spiking factor from the standard 8x8 and retrofit 8x8 design limit linear heat generation rate (LHGR} which currently appears in BWR plant Technical Specifications.
For the analytical procedures to account for power spiking in connection with fuel conse-quences-resulting from a&normal operational transients, the staff con-cluded that the calculated maximum transient LHGRs (for the Bx8 and BxBR fuel types) should be augmented by the fuel densification power spiking allowance before comparison with the exposure-dependent safety limit LHGR.
The staff additionally concluded that the revised analytical pro-cedures were acceptable for reference in connection wi'th licensing appli-cations to delete the Bx8 and/or 8xBR densification power spiking penalty from plant Technical Specifications.
Errata and Addenda pages dated September 1980'to "Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station Unit 2, Reload No. 3" dated June
- 1980, GE Publication No. Y1003JOlA12.
I'
By letter dated August 27,
- 1980, TVA submitted a reload amendment request for Browns Ferry Unit No. 3.
The supplemental reload li'censi'ng submittal prepared by GE for the Uni't 3 reload included a 2.2X peaking penalty for densification in determtni'ng the maximum LHGR associated with local rod withdrawal error (with limni'ting instrument failure] transient summary and in the fuel loading error LHGR.
Tn all cases.,
the predi'cted worst-case maximum transi'ent LHGRs, when augmented by the power spi'ke penalty, di'd not violate the exposure-dependent safety ltmi't"<HGRs..
Accordingly, when we i'ssued Amendment No.
37 to Faci'ltty License No.
DPR-68 on January 12, 1981 for Browns Ferry Untt No. 3, Section 3.5.J of the Technical Specifi'cations-on requi'red LHGRs was revised to specify a
constant value of 13.4 kw/ft rather than a value that had to be calculated as a function of core height.
TVAs.- submittal of February 20, 1981 for Browns Ferry Unit 2 is to revise Section 3.5.J of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications similar to the changes we approved on January 12, 1981 for Unit 3.
3.0.
Evaluati'on
'The most recent reload application for Browns Ferry Unit No.
2 was; submitted by letter from TVA dated July 14, 1980, which we approved by issuance of Amendment No.
58 to Facility License No.
DPR-52 on November 12, 1980.
The supplemental reload license submittal prepared by GE for this reload did not include a peaking. penalty for fuel densification in the calculation-of predicted maximum transient LHGRs.
The addendum to these analyses submitted by TVAs letter of February 20, 1981 included revised maximum LHGRs calculated for the local rod withdrawal error transient suranary and fuel loading errors.
As discussed
- above, the analytical procedures for accounting for the
, effects of fuel densificati'on power spiking have been approved on a generic basis for all 8x8 fuel types-.
Using these approved procedures, the worst-case maximum transient LHGRs calculated for the present Unit 2 core do not violate the exposure-dependent safety limit LHGRs.
Accordingly,
'e find the proposed changes to Section 3.5.J of the Technical -Specifi-cations.- and to the bases therefore to De acceptable.
The revisions will speci'fy a constant LHGR limit of 13.4 Kw/ft for the Bx8, 8x8R and P8x8R fuel elements in the core.
There is no change to the LHGR limit on the one batch of 7x7 fuel elements remaining in the core; the LHGR on the 7x7 fuel must still be'alculated according to the prescribed formula as. a function of core height.
4.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Havi'ng made this determinat'ion, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement
or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared ia connection wi'th the issuance of this amendment.
5.0.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does.not involve a significant increase in the probabil:ity or consequences of acci'dents previously considered and does not involve a signifi'cant decrease in a safety margin, the amend-ment does not involve a signi'fi'cant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, and (3) such. activities will be conducted in compli'ance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment wi'l-l'ot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health. and.safety of the public.
.Dated:
June 12, 1981
I