ML19347F323
| ML19347F323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F320 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105180383 | |
| Download: ML19347F323 (4) | |
Text
_
f* "%
,o; fo t.'NITED STATES g
(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (3 y h.c.,(,
) ;,.gQ
..s y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\; / /
+...
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-22 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING' PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-263 1.0 Introduction Northern States Power Company (the licensee) has proposed changes to the Technical Specifications of the Monticello facility in Reference 1.
The pro-posed changes relate to the core for Cycle 9 operation at power levels up to 1670 Hit (100% power).
In support of the reload application, the licensee has enclosed proposed Technical Specification changes in Reference 1 and the GE BWR supplemental licensing submittal (Reference 2).
The licensee has also proposed changing the allowable RPS delay time from 100 milliseconds to 50 milliseconds.
This reload involves loading of prepressurized GE 8x8 retrofit (P8x8R) fuel having drilled lower tieplates. This is the same type of fuel as was loaded during the last reload. The description of the nuclear and mechanical designs of 8x8 retrofit is contained in References 3 and 4.
Reference 3 also contains a complete set of references to topical reports which describe GE's analytical methods for nuclear, thermal-hydraulic, transient and accident calculations, and information regarding the applicability of these methods to cores containing a mixture of fuel. The use and safety implications of prepressurized fuel have been found acceptable per Reference 4.
The conclusions of Reference 5 found that the methods of Reference 3 were generally applicable to prepressurized fuel.
Therefore, ualess otherwise specified, Reference 3, as supported by Reference 5, is adequate justification for the current application' of prepressurized 0:el.
2.0 Evaluation 2.1 Reactor Physics The reload application follows the procedure described in NEDE-240ll-P,
" Generic Reload Fuel Application." We have reviewed this-application and the consequent Technical Specification changes. The transient analysis input parameters are typical for BWRs and are acceptable.
Core wide transient analysis results are given for the limiting transients and the required operating limit values for MCPR are given for each fuel type.
The revised MCPR limits are required by the reload and they are acceptable.
J 8105180 3 S 3
/
2,2 Themal Hydraulics
~
As stated in Reference 3, for B'rTR cores which relcad with GE's retrofit 8x8R fuel, the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) resulting from either core-wide or localized abnomal operational transients is equal to 1.07.
When meeting this SLMCPR during a transient, at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are expected to avoid boiling transition.
To assure that the fuel cladding integrity SLMCPR will not be violated during any abnormal operational transient or fuel misloading, the most limiting events have been reanalyzed for this reload by the li.censee, in or' der to determine which event results in the largest reduction in the minimum critical power ratio. These events have been analyzed for
- the exposed fuel and fresh fuel.
Addition of the largest reductions in critical power ratio to the SLMCPR was used to establish the operating limits for each fuel ' type.
We have found the methods used for this analysis consistent with previously approved past practice (Reference 3). We have found the results of this analysis and the corresponding Technical Specification changes acceptable.
2.3 ECCS Aopendix X Input data and results for ECCS analysis have been given in References 1 and 2.
The infomation presented fulfills the requirements for each analysis outlined in Reference 3.
We have reviewed the analyses and infomati.on subnntted for the reload anc conclude that the Monticello plant will bc in confomance with all requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR 50.'46 when it is operated in accordance with the Technical Specifications we are issuing with this amendment.
2.4 RPS Delay Time The licensee has proposed to change the allowed time between a channel sensing a trip condition and the deenergization of the scram pilot valve solenoids from 100 milliseconds to 50 milliseconds. This change will bring the Technical Specifications into agreement with the value assumed in the licensing analysis. The change is in the more con-servative direction; the licensee has indicated that the 50 millisecond RPS delay time has been demonstrated to be attainable in previous tests.
We find the licensee's proposed change acceptable.
_ nvironmer tal Considerations -
E 3.0 We have determined that the amendment dces not authorize a' change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not re'sult in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this detemination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from tne standpoint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(a) that an environmental impact statemert, or necative declaration and environmental 4 pact appraisal need not be prepared.in connection with the issuance of the amer.dment.
/.
3-4.0 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 amend-ment 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 regu-lations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
May 4.1981 O
e 9
e 9
e e
D
)
4-
~
REFERENCES l.
(a)
Letter, NSP to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (USNRC),
dated February 9,1981 (b)
Letter, NSP.to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (USNRC),
dated March 19, 1981.
2.
" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, Reload 8 (Cycle )", dated March 1981.
3.
" General Electric Boiling Water Reactor Generic Reload Application",
NEDE-240ll-P-A, May 1977.
4.
Letter, R. E. Engel (GE) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated January 30, 1979.
5.
Letter, T. A. Ippolito (USNRC) to R. Gridley (GE), April 16, 1979, and enclosed SER.
G e
9 0
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-263 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPAtlY NOTICE OF ISSUAtlCE OF A?1ENDt1ENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE The U..S. Nuclear Rigulatory Comis'..ca (the Comission) has issued Amendment No. 5 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to Northern States Power Company, which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (the facility) located in Wright County, Minnesota. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
The amendment is associated with the eighth refueling for Cycle 9 operation. Modifications are made to:
(1) incorporate the requirements of ODYN (Option B) ano new MAPLHGR and MCPR limits associated with recent analyses, (2) change the RPS delay time and (3) make minor clarifying changes in the bases having no safety significance.
The application for amendment complies with the standards and require-ments of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Com-mission's rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of the amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a signi-ficant hazards consideration.
The Comission has detemined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and tha'. pursuant to 10 CFR !i51.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
f/ps1363%
. 7590-01 For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated February 6,1981, as supplemented March 19,1981,(2)
Amendment No. 5 to License No. DPR-22, and (3) the Commission's related
- Safety Evaluation. All of 'i;iese items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
and at the Environmental Conservation Library, Minneapolis Public Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, tiinnesota.
A copy of items (2) and (3) may'be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D._C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 4th day 0.f May 1981.
FOR THE ilVCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
John N. Hannon,-Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Licensing
O hf,Q h
[
Cg 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-263 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPAflY NOTICE OF ISSUAtlCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE The U..S. Nuclear R6gulatory Comission (the Comission) has issued Amendment No. 5 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to florthern States Power Company, which revised the Technical Specifications for operation cf the Monticello fluclear Generating Plant (the facility) located in Wright County, Minnesota. The amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
The amendment is associated with the eighth refueling for Cycle 9 operation. Modifications are made to:
(1) incorporate the requirements of ODYN (Option B) and new MAPLHGR and MCPR limits associated with recent analyses, (2) chenge the RPS delay time and (3) make minor clarifying changes in the bases having no safety significance.
The application for amendment complies with the standards and require-ments of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Com-mission's rules and regulations. The Comission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Comission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Prior public notice of the amendment was not required since the amendment does not involve a signi-ficant hazards consideration.
The Comission has detennined that the issuance of this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4) an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
~ 7590-01 For further details with respect to this action, see (1) the application for amendment dated February 6,1981, as supplemented March 19,.1981,(2)
Amendment No. 5 to License No. DPR-22, and (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
and at the Environmental Conservation Library, Minneapolis Public Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, liinnesota. A copy of items (2) and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention:
Director, Division of Licensing.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 4th day of May 1981.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
W
/ Operating Reactors Branch #2 John N. Hannon,-Acting Chief Division of Licensing