ML20012C777
| ML20012C777 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C774 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003230204 | |
| Download: ML20012C777 (5) | |
Text
O o L *
/p,%
o
.4
'g UNITED STATES
(
[j
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- c
.j WASHINGTON D. C. 20$$$
i
...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
SUPPORT 1tG AMENCKENT NO. 88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICEESE NO. NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROL 1hA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY VIRGIL C. SlMMER NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-395
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated Septenter 19,1989 (Ref.1), as anended by letter dated October 19,1989 (Ref. 2) and superseded by letter dated Decenber 11, 1989 (Ref. 3), South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Virgil C. Sumner Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1.
The proposed changes would modify specifications having cycle-specific parameter limits by replacing the values of those limits with a reference to a Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) for the values of those limits. The proposed changes also include the addition of the COLR to the Definitions section and to the reporting requirenents of the Administrative Controls section of TS.
Guidance on the proposed changes was developed by NRC on the basis of the review of a lead-plant proposal submitted on the Oconee plant docket by Duke Power Conpany.
This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16, dated October 4, 1988 (Ref. 4).
2.0 EVALVATig The licensee's proposed changes to the TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below.
(1) The Definition section of the TS was modified to include a definition of the Core Operating Limits Report-that requires cycle / reload-specific parameter limits to be established on a unit-specific basis in accordance with an NRC approved methodology that maintains the limits of the safety analy si s.
The definition notes that plant operation within these limits is addressed by itidividual specifications.
This change is acceptable, (2) The following specifications were revised to replace the values of I
cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the COLR that l
provides these limits.
9003230204 900306.
I)
PDR ADOCK 0500 g
p w
l l'
1
k
'o 4
1 L
-2 i
(a) Specification 3.1.1.3 and Surveillance Requirenent 4.1.1.3 1
The moderator temperature coefficient (ItTC) limits for this specification and for this surveillance requirerent are specified in the COLR.
(b) Specifica tion 3.1.3.1 This Specification's action statenent, 3.1.3.1.a.2, was revised to reference the control rod insertion limits specified in the COLR.
j i
(c) Specification 3.1.3.5 and Survell)ance Requirement 4.1.3.5
)
The shutdown bank insertion limit for this specification and for j
this surveillance requirement is specified in the COLR.
(d) Specification 3.1.3.6 The control bank insertion limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
(e) Specification 3.2.1 The axial flux difference limits, target bank, and the minimum allowable power level for base load operation (APL) for this specification are specified in the COLR.
(f) Specification 3.2.2 and Surveillance Requirement 4.2.2 The total peaking factor (F ) limit at rated thernal power, the normalized F limit as a fuSction of core height K(z), the transient 9
xenon effect on F as a function of core height, and the minimm allowable power 19 vel for base load operation for this specification and for this surveillance requirement are specified in the COLR.
(g) Specification 3.2.3 and Surveillance Requirement 4.2.3 The nuclear enthalpy rise hot channel factor (F-delta-H) limit at rated thermal power, and the power factor multiplier (PF-delta-H) for this specification and. surveillance requirerent are specified in the COLR.
In addition, the bases of affected specifications have been modified by the licensee to include appropriate reference to the COLR.
Ba sed on our review, we conclude that the changes to the sections enucerated above and to their associated bases are consistent with the Generic Letter and thus, are acceptable.
I, {8o s - ;
i
.g o 0 (3) Specification 6.9.1.11 is revised to delete a previous reporting requirenent on Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report and to add the Core Operating Limits Repoit to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS.
This specification requires that the COLR be sutamitted, upon issuance, to the NRC Document Control Desk with copies to the Regional Administrator and R6sident Inspector.
The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle.
Furthermore, these specifications require that the values of these limits be established using NRC approved methodologies and be consistent with all applicable limits of the safety analysis.
The approved methodologies are the following:
(a) WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology,"
July 1985 (W Proprietary).
(Methodology for Specification 3.1.1.3 - Moderator Temperature Coefficient, 3.1.3.5 - Shutdown Bank Insertion Limit, 3.1.3.6 -
Control Bank Insertion Limit 3.2.1 - Axial Flux Difference, 3.2.2 -
Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor, and 3.2.3 - Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot ChannelFactor.)
(b) WCAP-10216-P-A, " Relaxation of Constant Axial Offset Control F SurveillanceTechnicalSpecification," June 1983(WProprietark).
(Methodology for Specifications 3.2.1 - Axial Flux Difference (Relaxed Axial Offset Control) and 3.2.2 - Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor (F Methodology for W(Z) surveillance requirements).)
g (c) WCAP-10266-P-A, Rev. 2 "The 1981 Version of Westinghouse Evaluation Model Using BASH Code," March 1987 (W Proprietary).
(Methodology for Specification 3.2.2 - Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor.)
i l
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or remaining part of a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
On the basis of the review of the above items, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in l
l
9 z..
j j l the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on nodifying ycle-specific parameter limits in TS.
Because plant operation cuntinues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specific paraneter limits that are established using EC approved methooologies, the NRC staff concludes that this change is cdministrative in nature and there is no inpact on plant safety as a con secuence.
Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed changes are r
a cceptable.
As part of the iniplenentation of Generic Letter 80-16, the staff has also reviewed a sanple COLR that was provided by the licensee. On the basis of this review, the staff ccncludes that the fornet and content of the sample COLR are acceptable.
3.0 SUMmRY The staff has reviewed the request by the South Carolina Electric & Gas Corparty to nodify the Technical Specifications of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station that would remove the specific values of some qcle-dependent parameters from the specifications and place the values in a Core Operating Limits Re) ort that would be referenced >y the Specification.
Based on this review, tie staff concludes that these TS nodifications are acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This anendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, changes to the surveillance requirenents, and changes to reporting requirenents.
The staff has determined that the anendment involves no significant increase in the anounts, and no significant change in the types, of ar1y effluents that may be released off site, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Conrtission has previously issued a proposed finding that this anendnent involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public conment on such finding.
Accordingly, this anendment neets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9) and (10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental inpact statement or environnental assessnent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this anendnent.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Conmission has issued a " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Arrendment to facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing" which was L
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on Decenber 27,1989 (54 FR 53211) and I
consulted with the State of South Carolina.
No sublic coments or requests for hearing were received, and the State of Souti Cartlina did not have conIne nt s.
c,.M**
f t..
5 The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from 0. S. Bradham (SCE&G) to NRC, dated September 19, 1989.
2.
Letter from O. S. Bradham (SCE&G) to NRC, dated October 19, 1989.
3.
Letter fron 0. S. Bradham (SCE&G) to NRC, dated December 11, 1985.
4.
Generic Letter 08-16. " Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from Technical Specifications," dated October 4, 1988.
Principal Contributor: J. Hayes, Jr.
Dated: March 6, 1990
.