ML20002C643
| ML20002C643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1972 |
| From: | Skovholt D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Sewell R CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002C644 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101100643 | |
| Download: ML20002C643 (2) | |
Text
...
~
UNITED STATES O
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545
- +
f February 28, 1972 Docket No. 50-155 s
Consumers Power Company ATTN:
Mr. Ralph B. Sewell Nuclear Licensing Administrator 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Change No. 28 Gentlemen:
License No. DPR-6 Your letter dated January 21', 1972, requested changes in the Technical Specifications of Facility License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point reactor to (1) allow use of both original design and redesigned fuel channel and support tube assemblies and (2) clarify the wording governing stack release rate limits.
The modified fuel channel and support tube assemblies have been designed to improve coolant flow at the entrance region of the fuel bundle without altering the total core flow pattern when both original and redesigned
- assemblies are used in the core. You state that hydrodynamic tests have demonstrated that the modified assemblies fulfill the objectives of the redesign.
In addition, you indicate that experimental work has demonstrated that flow effects in the fuel bundle entrance region of the original design assemblies do not cause any thermal hydraulic operating limits to be exceeded.
Based on our evaluation of the description of the modification and the stated results of the hydraulic tests, we have concluded that use of original design and redesigned fuel channel and support tube assemblies is acceptable.
Your proposed change concerning the limits on gaseous release of iodine 131 and particulates with half lives greater than eight days clarifies the present intent of the specifications.
This clarification, that involves stating a limit in terms of I-131 rather than halogens, is in accord with the requirements of other nuclear power plants and is acceptable. As we informed you, the specified delay between removal and analysis of the filter is not considered necessary.
Therefore, this requirement has been deleted.
Based on our evaluation, we have concluded that operation.of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, as proposed, does not present significant hazards MAbb VIDI/OOGW3 d ma
-6N...J
~ '
-w
s -
i Consumers Power -Company Februa- -
1972 considerations not described or implicit in the Big Rock Point Safety Analysis Report (Hazards Summary Report) and that there is reasonable assurance that
- the health 'and safety of the public will' not be endangered.
Pursuant to Section 50.59 of 10 CFR Part 50, the Technical Specifications of Facility License No. DPR-6 are hereby changed as indicated below:
1.
Change Section 5.1.5(e) to read:-
"(e) Total Weight Supported by Core Support Plate:
84 Fuel Bundles G Approximately 440 lb/ bundle 36,960 lb A total of 88 support tube and channel assemblies consisting of:
(1)
Up to 86 support tube and channel assemblies with orifice bucket @
110 lb/ assembly, or 9,460 lb (2) Up to 86 support tube and channel assemblies with modified transition and orifice insert 0 107 lb/ assembly, 9,202 lb and (3) 2 support tube and channel assemblies with channel plugs @ 110 lb 220 lb 1 flow distributor assembly 2,500 lb Total Weight 48,882-49,140 lb" 2.
Change the second paragraph of Section 6.5.4(a) to read:
"The annual average stack release rate for iodine 131 and particulate matter with half-lives greater than eight days (expressed in units of microcuries per second) shall not exceed the permissible air concentrations for unrestricted 10 areas, as given in 10 CFR 20, multiplied by 1.2 x 10 3
cm /second.
Iodine and particulate sample filters shall be removed and analyzed at least weekly."
3.
Delete in its entirety the third paragraph of Section 6.5.4(c).
Sincerely, p f
k Dona.d Skovholt Assistant Director for Reactor Operations Division of Reactor Licensing cc: George F. Trowbridge, Esquire 9
i ef Distribution WDooly, DR REngelken, CO (2) r[p e jgp HShapar, OGC i
i NDube, DRL (5)
JRBuchanan, ORNL l
Docket No. 50-155
'IWLaughlin, DTIEJ PDR
~
.Mocket File
~
DRL Reading Consumers Power Company Branch Reading ATTN:
Mr. Ralph B. Sewell ACRS (16)
Nuclear Licensing Administrator DJSkovholt, DRL TJCarter, DRL 112 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 DLZiemann, DRL Change No. 28 License No. DPR-6 Oentlesmen.
Your letter dated January 21. 1972, requested changes in the Technical 3pecifications of Facility License No. DPR-6 for the Big Rock Point reactor to (1) allow use of both origina' design and redesigned fuel channel and support tube assemblies and (2)
Larify the wording governing stack release rate limits.
The modified fuel enannel and support tube assesablies have been designed to improve coolant flow at the entrance region of the fuel bundle without altering the total core flow pattern when both original and redesigned assemblies are used in the core. You state that hydrodynamic tests have demonstrated tnat the modified assemblies fulfill the objectives of the redesign.
In addition. you indicate that experimental work has demonstrated that flow effects in the fuel bundle entrance region of the original design assemblies do not cause any thermal hydraulic operating limits to be exceedad. Based on our evaluation of the description of the modification and the stated results of the hydraulic tests, we have concluded that use of original design and redesigned fuel channel and support tube assemblies is acceptable.
Your proposed change concerning the limits on gaseous release of iodine 131 and particulates with half lives greater than e' 5t days clarifies the present intent of the specifications.
This clarification, that involves stating a limit in terms of 1-131 rather than halogens, is ia accord with the requirements of other nucicar power plants and is acceptable. As we informed you, the specified delay between removal and analysis of the filter is not considered necessary. Thsrefore, this requirement has been j
deleted.
.., q b Based on our evaluation, we have concluded that operation of the Big Rock
- L',. Point Nuclear Plant, as proposed, does not present significant hasards RDSilver, DRL PMDiggs, DRL JJShea, DRL t/'
810110064S L
s P00R ORIGINAL
Consumers Power Company FEB 2eig/c considerations not described or istplicit in the Big Rock Point Safety Analysis Report (Hazards Summary Report) and that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.
Pursuant to Section 50.59 of 10 CTE Part 50, the Technical Specifications of Facility License No. DPR-6 are hereby changed as indicated below.
1.
Change Section 5.1.5(e) to read;
(e)
Total Weight Suri;-n. by Core Sup ort Plate _;
84 Fuel Bun
. J Approximately 440 lb/ bundle 36,960 lb A total of 88 support tube and channel assaablies consisting of.
(1) Up to 86 support tube and channel assemblies with orifice bucket 0 110 lb/ assembly, or 9,460 lb (2) Up to 86 support tube and channel assemblies with modified transition and orifice insert 0 107 lb/ assembly.
9,202 lb and (3) 2 support tube and channel assemblies with channel plugs G 110 lb 220 lb 1 flow distributor assembly 2.500 lb Total Weight 48,882-49,140 lb
2.
Change the second paragraph of Section 6.5.4(a) to read-
The annual average stack release rate for iodine 131 and particulate a-atter with half-lives greater than eight daya (expressed in units of microcuries per second) shall not exceed the permissible air concentrations for unrestricted 10 areas, as given in 10 CFR 20, multiplied by 1.2 x 10 3
cm /second.
Iodine and particulate sample filters shall be removed and analysed at least weekly."
l
- h,3, I
3.
Delete in its entirety the third paragraph of Section 6.5.4(a).
e ~... c -
OqMk & ;-
Sincerely, w\\
?.
.._. E.
I.-- -S%-./...-..
.... -Dona ld J.-.dkeyholt-omet >
k
,,M,,,'g,p,g,} t SURNAME >
..kk f......
Rese r-te k.
eman 0
2,/25/72,
2/,2p72 Division of teactor Liepnsing2/M/72, 2/ g/72 worm inc.:is ow,.
ssi aum
-m.m w
-mm cc.
George F. Trowbridge, Esquire P00R ORIGINAL
... =
k.
Files FEB 2 01972 Consumers ~ also concluded that the changes in shutdown margin resulting cfrom raising the fuel bundles 3/8 inch will be too small to be measured.
~ We ' agree that the effect on shutdown margin will not be significant.
Consumers has summarized a quality assurance program that includes
- (1) vendor QA requirements in the purchase specifications, (2) a progr.4m of periodic audits and (3) maintenance and access to vendor's records.
Based on our evaluation of the description of the modification and the results of the hydraulic tests, we have concluded that use of original design and redesigned fuel channel and support tube assemblies is acceptabic.
. Consumers proposed change concerning the limits on gaseous release of iodine 131 and particulates with half lives greater than eight days clarifies the present intent of the specifications.
This clarification,
.that involves stating a limit in terms of I-131 rather than halogens,
'is in accord with the requirements of other nuclear power plants and is acceptable. We did, however, delete the required time in erval af ter filter removal for performing analyses as we do not consider this to be necesaary.
Consumers has agreed to this modification.
The reference to-a required time interval was related to previously used techniques using gross gamma counting.
Consumers has informed us that in December 1971 they obtained a multi-channel analyzer formerly used at the Palisades plant and are running gamma ray spectra.
They are recording I-131 and 1-133 releases.
They further informed us that they are complying with Safety Guide No. 21 (Measuring and Reporting of Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants) in all respects other than sensitivity of monitoring systems.
Information on their new multi-channel analyzer and procedures required by Safety Guide No. 21 will be included in their semiannual reports.
Based on our evaluation, we have concluded that operation of the Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, as proposed, does not present significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the Big Rock Point Safety Analysis Report (Hazards Summary Report) and that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered.
The Big Rock Technical Specifications may be amended as proposed by Consumers.
h
^
R. D. Silver & J. J. Sh.eg Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Reactor Licensing cc:
DJSkovholt, DRL RDSilver, DRL MJinks, DR TJCarter, DRL JJShea, DRL DLZiemann, DRL RMDiggs, DRL
_w w
y m
w