ML19260C524
| ML19260C524 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19260C522 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001070341 | |
| Download: ML19260C524 (3) | |
Text
km magg
.',o UNITED STATES y y a sy ( gg NUCLCAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.Q f p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%; udl SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 49 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-62 CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-324 1.0 Introduction By letter dated October 10,1979 (Reference 1) the Carolina Power and Light Company (the licensee) docunented an error in the end-of-cycle (E0C)
Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) limits. The letter included a proposed Technical Specification change with justification in the form of a supplemental Reload License Submittal, NED0-24182A (Reference 2).
The EOC MCPR error resulted from incorrectly using beginning-of-cycle (B0C) void coefficient data for the ECfC calculations.
The operating MCPR limits calculated with the improper void coefficient were not conservative for the latter part of Cycle 3 (80C to E0C - 2000 MWD /T).
However, the error was found and new MCPR limits were calculated prior to reaching the latter part of Cycle 3.
The licensee administratively imposed the corrected MCPR limits prior to reaching E0C - 2000 MWD /t, which occurred on October 15, 1979. This action was documented by letter dated October 23, 1979 (Reference 3).
2.0 Evaluation With the analysis corrected for E0C void coefficients, Generator Load Rejection without bypass remained the nost limiting transient, as expected. The operating MCPR limits were increased for each fuel type also as expected.
Based on the corrected analysis submitted in Reference 2, we find the proposed operating MCPR limits acceptable for use durina the latter part of Cycle 3.
In addition, we recuire and CP&L has agreed to provide a summary of procedural /
program changes and corrective actions taken to avoid sirilar errors in the future, prior to the next refueling outage. We find this commitrent acceptable.
1694 184 3
I an0 070 Environmental Consideration 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. ifaving made this determination, we have further concluded that the snendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental.
impact and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant 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 compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: December 10, 1979 o
9
3-
References:
1.
Letter, E. E. Utley, CP&L to T. A. Ippolito, NRC, dated October 10, 1979.
2.
Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Unit No. 2 Reload 2 Revisien 1:
Revised Transient and GETAB Analysis NED0-24182A, August 1979.
3.
Letter, E. E. Utley, CP&L to T. A. Ippolito, NRC, dated October 23, 1979.
O e
e e
1694 186