ML20012C879
| ML20012C879 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C878 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003260040 | |
| Download: ML20012C879 (3) | |
Text
_~)e'-
e p ra: =
'{
UNITED STATES o
j Y [,'
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
- WASHlhoTON, D. C. 20555 1 f
./
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.105 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDHENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COWANY DOCVITS NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 MCGblRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 17, 1990, as supplemented January 29, 1990, Du ke Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would modify specifications having qycle-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
" Core Operating Limits Peport' to the Definitions section and to the reporting requirements 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 diacket that was endorsed by the Babcock and Wilcox Owners Group.
This guidance was providec to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16 eted October 4,.1988.
i These amendments also delete several_ obsolete footnotes which permitted, subject to specified requirements, operation of McGuire Unit I during a portion of its j
fuel Cycle 6 when the number of available movable detector thinbles in the core was less than 75%.
This deletion is in accordance with the licensee's request of Jcnuary 29, 1990.
While the January 29,1990,' submittal was not referenced h % February 7, 1990, Federal Register notice, the changes proposed in tb uital were i
s described in the notice.
The licensee also provided a sangh C0'.R by letter e
' dated January 29, 1990.
This supplemental submittal did not alter the action /
noticed or affect the initial determination of no significar.t hazards consider-ation.
i e
d 8 2.0 EVALUATION
- o a.
y 2.1 Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits
((
The licensee's proposed changes to the TSs are in accordance with the guidance gg provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below.
00 (1) The Definition section of the TSs was modified to include a definition of M-the COLR that requires qycle/ reload-specific parameter limits to be 88 established on a unit-specific basis in accordance with an NRC-approved
-maA methodology that maintains the limits of the safety analysis.
The definition pote that plant operation within these limits is addressed by individual specifications.
1, ~,. : c k
UNITED STATES f [,
p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-L
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S$5 N
%*****/ SAFETY EVALUATION'BY THE OFFICE (t' NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.105 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND AMENDMENT H0. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUP.E POWER COPFANY DOCVITS NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 17, 1990, as supplemented January 29, 1990, Du ke Power Compary-(the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would modify specifications having gcle-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
" Core Operating Limits Report' to the Definitions section and to the reporting requirements 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 subraitted on the Oconee plant docket that was endorsed by the Babcock
- and Wilcox Owners Group. This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16 dated October 4,1988.
These amendments also deletc several obsolete footnotes wt.h permitted, subject to specified requirements, operation of McGuire Unit I during a portion of its fuel Cycle 6 when the number of available mcyable detector thinbles in the core was less than 75%.
This deletion is in accordance with the licensee's request of January 29, 1990.
While the January 29, 1990, submittal was not referenmd in the February 7, 1990, Federal Register notice, the changes proposed in the submittal were described in the notice. The licensee also provided a sample COLR by letter dated January 29, 1990.
This supplemental submittal did not alter the action 6d noticed or affect the initial determination of no significant hazards consider-
- ation, os e-gd 2.0 EVALUATION
-o o. '
2.1 Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits
(
The licensee's proposed changes to the TSs are in accordance with the guidance g
provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below, 00 (1)' The Definition section of the TSs was modified to include a definition of the COLR:that requires ecle/ reload-specific parameter limits to be
>8@
established on a unit-specific basis in accordance with an NRC-approved e a 0.
methodology that maintains the limits of the safety analysis.
The I
definition notes that plant operation within these limits is addressed by individual specifications.
8
+
., (2) The following specifications and bases were revised to replace the values of cycle-saccific paramter limits with a reference to the COLR that provides t hese limits.
3/4.1.3.5 Reactivity Control Systems - Shutdown Rod Insertion Limit 3.1.3.6 Reactivity ContrV1 Systems - Control Rod Insertion Limits Figure 3.1-1 Rod Bank Insertion Limits Versus Relative Power 3.2.1 Axial Flux Difference (AFD)
Figure 3.2-1 AFD Limits as a Function of Rated Thermal Power 3/4.2.2 Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor (F (2))
n Figure 3.2-2 K(Z) - Normalized F (Z) as a Function of Core Height n
3/4.2.3 Power Distribution timits - RCS Flow Rate and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel factor Figure 3.2-3 RCS Flow Rate Versus R - Four Loops in Operation e
Bases 3/4.1.1.3-Moderator Temperature Coefficient Bases 3/4.1.3 Movable Control Assenb11es Bases 3/4.2.1 Axial Flux Difference Bases 3/4.2.2 Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor, and RCS Flow Rate and 3/4.2.3 and Nuclear Enthalpy Rise llot Channel Factor (3) Specification 6.9.1.9, " Peaking Factor Limit Report," was revised and retitled " Core Operating Limits Report" so as to address the reporting requirenents of the Administrative Controls section of the TSs.
This specificatica requires that the COLR be submitted, upon issuance, to the NRC Document Control Desk with copies to the Regional Administrator and Resident Inspector. The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel ecle.
Furthermore, this specification requires that the values of these limits be established using the NRC-approved methodology in WCAP-9272-P-A, WCAP-10216-P-A and WCAP-10266-P-A, Revision 2, and consistent with all applicable limits of the safety analysis.
Finally, the specification requires that all changes. in cycle-specific parameter limits be l
docunented in the COLR before each reload gycle or remaining part of a L
reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
i On the basis of the review of the above items, the NRC staff concludes that L
the limnsee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in l
the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits in the TSs.
Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are established using an NRC-approved methodology, the NRC staff concludes that this change is l-administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence.
Accordingly, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable.
As part of the implementation of Generic Letter 88-16, the NRC staff also reviewed a sample COLR provided by the licensee's submitta l of January 29, 1990.
The staff concludes that the format and content of the sample COLR l'
are acceptable.
I e
g (4 ~ g;,
Loc.s
.; l 1.2 Novable.Incore Detector Thimbles
'By letter dated January 29, 1990, the licenme requested deletion of several footnotes, and associated references to tha.t These footnotes and references had been previously added to tim TSs by License Amendments 101 (Unit 1) and 83 (Unit 2). The footnotes applied only during fuel Cycle 6 of McGuire Unit 1
'and addressed operation with less than 75% (but with at least 50%) of the total movable detector thinbles in the core available. These footnotes and their references appear on TS pages 3/4 2-7, 3/4 2-9, 3/4 2-9b, 3/4 2-14, and 3/4 3-45.
Secause McGuire Unit I has now completed operation with fuel Cycle 6, these
- footnotes, and references to them, are obsolete. Accordingly, their removal
' from the TSs is purely administrative and has no adverse safety impact.
This change is, therefore, acceptable.
1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes in requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility corrponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The amendnents also involve changes ~ in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The L
staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in L
the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative -occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment'on such finding. Accordingly, the amendnents meet the eligibility) criteria for categorical exclusion set i
1.
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10. - Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no l
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
i
.The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no l
L significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 4268) on February 7,1990. The Comission consulted with the State of North Carolina.
No ptblic comments were received, and the State of North
~,
Carolina did not have any coments.
l We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and-safety of the public will l
not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendnents will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
O Principal Contributors:
Daniel B, Fieno, SRXB/ DEST Thomas G. Dunning, OTSB/D0EA Darl Hood, PDII-3/DRP-1/II Dated: 1 March 15, 1990 l'
.,_