ML20033E429
| ML20033E429 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 02/28/1990 |
| From: | Cutter A CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033E430 | List: |
| References | |
| NLS-90-009, NLS-90-9, NUDOCS 9003120747 | |
| Download: ML20033E429 (7) | |
Text
~ ~, _
,I cercane Power a uoht company P O. Box 1551
- Ralogh. N C. 27602 FEB 2 81990-A. B CUTTER SERIAL; NLS-90 009
%ce President 10CFR50.90 Nuclear Services Department 90TSB01 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
ATTENTION: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 I
DOCKET NO. 50-325/ LICENSE NO. DPR-71 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FUEL CYCLE 8 - RELOAD LICENSING Gentlemen:
In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 50.90 and 2.101, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) hereby requests a revision to the Technical Specifications for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP),
Unit 1.
The proposed amendment revises the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit specified in Technical Specification 2.1.2-from 1,04 to 1.07 for Cycle 8 operation.
In addition, Technical Specification 5.3.1 has been revised to (1) reflect the new fuel type (CE8X8NB 3) which will be inserted in the upcoming refueling outage, (2) more clearly identify existing fuel types, and (3) i delete fuel types that will not be in the core during Cycle 8. provides a detailed description of the proposed changes and the basis for the changes. details the basis for the Company's determination that the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration. provides the proposed Technical Specification pages for Unit 1.
In order to allow time for procedure revision and orderly incorporation into copics of the Technical Specifications, CP&L requests that the proposed amendment, once approved by the NRC, be issued with an effective date to be no later than 60 days from the issuance of the amendment.
n Y
(0
' f t \\
1 9003120747 900228 PDR-ADOCK 05000325 P
D:cumant C:ntral Dxk NLS-90-009 / Page 2 Please-refer any questions regarding this submittal to Mr. M. R. F.r.es at (919) 546-6063.
Yours very trul,
AQ 'f '/
A. B Cutter ABC/ MAT i
Enclosures:
1.
Basis for Change Request 2.
10 CIR 50.92 Evaluation 3.
Technical Specification Pages - Unit 1 cc:
Mr. Dayne 11. Brown i
Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. W.11. Ruland Mr. E. G. Tourigny A. B. Cutter, having been first duly sworn, did depose and say that the information contained herein is true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge and belief; and the sources of his information are.
officers, employees, contractors, and agents of Carolina Power & Light Company.
Ms
- 5. L
" ' Notary (Seal) l My commission expires: 7//2.l%
g iimsee,,,
f i
PUBL\\C coun@4/
,,,,.....,,p i
ENCLOSURE 1=
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET No. 50 325/ LICENSE NO. DPR 71 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FUEL CYCLE 8 - RELOAD LICENSING BASIS FOR CHANGE REQUEST Proposed Chance l
The proposed amendment revises the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit specified in Technical Specification 2.1.2 from 1.04 to 1.07 for Cycle 8 operation.
In addition,. Technical Specification 3.3.1 has been revised to (1) i reflect the new fuel type (CE8X8NB-3) which will be inserted in the upcoming.
refueling outage, (2) more clearly identify existing fuel types, and (3) delete fuel types that will not be. in the core during Cycle 8.
I Basis Currently, the Brunswick-1 Technical Specifications reference the useoof a safety limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) value of 1.04.
The proposed amendment changes the MCPR safety limit in Technical Specification 2.1.2 from 1.04 to 1.07.
l The MCPR safety limit is established to protect the integrity of the fuel cladding during normal plant operations and anticipated transients, as l
required by Criterion 10 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.
As such, the MCPR safety limit bounds the acceptable consequences of anticipated operational occurrences. The current MCPR' safety limit of 1.04 provides adequate margin to assure that more than 99.9% of the fuel rods in the Cycle 7 core avoid transition boiling.
The revised MCPR safety limit of 1.07 maintains this margin, taking into' account the new GE8X8NB-3 fuel type to be loaded in Cycle 8.
The CE8X8NB-3 design consists of the GE8X8NB fuel design with an interactive channel and offset lower tie plate. The NRC has approved the use of the C-lattice GE8X8NB safety limit MCPR of 1.07 for evaluations of GE8X8NB-3 reloads in Amendment 21 to NEDE 24011-P A, "Goneral Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel" (CESTAR-II).
The GE8X8NB-3 design has a geometry between C-lattice and D lattice designs.
The offset lower tie plate makes D-lattice bundles more compatible with C-lattice bundles for analyses purposes. Use of the GE8X8NB bounding C lattice MCPR safety limit, which is greater than the D-lattice safety limit, constitutes a conservative approach and maintains the current margin of safety.
Technical Specification 5.3.1 currently refers to four fuel types:
- 8X8R, P8X8R, BP8X8R, and GE8. Two of these, 8X8R and P8X8R, will not be loaded in-the Brunswick-1 core during the upcoming cycle.
The proposed change deletes references to these fuel types from Technical Specification 5.3.1.
The reference to CE8 is accurate but inconsistent with the nomenclature used in El-1
..- _ _ _ ~..- -- _, _
.s
[.i=
!_[.-
.<.c.
r l
+
ce 4
si
- GESTAR II.
Therefore,._the reference:-to GE8 is being replaced with_an' equivalent reforence to GE8X8EB. Reference.to_the GE8X8NB-3_ fuel type!is-f beingladded to reflect the use of'.this.new fuel type in cycle 8.
i.
ib.
r 4
-t
- 5 h
i c
W
+
b I
e I
1
\\
=[
'5
?
j j
e E,
1 F
n
.l
.t El-2 T'f --
g
-Qw-
+p-p
--.y9
--v-=-
m-+-y 9.v.---g-y
.g g
y yy,w
,,,y gy
.w Hwgye g g-44 f,
up yy et-
> ',yi NSpe-f--p
7
?
ENCLOSURE 2 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50 325/ LICENSE NO. DPR-71 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FUEL CYCLE 8 - RELOAD LICENSING 10 CFR 50.92 EVALUATION The Commission has provided standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c) for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation'of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) involve a significant increase-in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Carolina Power & Light Company has reviewed this proposed license amendment request and determined that its adoption would not involve a significant hazards consideration. Tne bases for this determination are as follows:
Proposed Change The proposed amendment revises the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit specified in Technical Specification 2.1.2 from 1.04 to 1.07 for Cycle 8 operation.
In addition, Technical Specification 5.3.1 has been revised to'(1) reflect the new fuel type (GE8X8NB-3) which will be inserted in the upcoming refueling outage, (2) more clearly identify existing fuel types, and (3) delete fuel types that will not be in the core during Cycle 8.
Basis The change does not involve a significant hazards consideration for the following reasons:
l 1.
The NRC accepted methodology used to derive the updated safety limit MCPR of 1.07 applies the same criteria as that used to derive the l
current safety limit MCPR value of 1.04.
The updated safety limit MCPR value of 1.07 assures that fuel cladding protection equivalent to that provided with the safety limit MCPR value of 1.04 is maintained. Thus, the consequences of accidents previously evaluated are not significantly increased.
The safety limit MCPR does not affect any physical system or equipment which could change the probability of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
Adoption of the proposed MCPR safety limit value does not affect the function of any component or system.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
E2-1
3.
The safety limit MCPR value is determined for cycle specific application.
of fuel types as described in NEDE 24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Puel," to meet Criterion 10 of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A.
Analyses of the limiting anticipated operational occurrences for each cycle are used in conjunction with the applicable safety limit MCPR value to determine cycle specific operating limit MCPR values. Use of the 1.07 safety limit MCPR for Cycle 8 will result in equivalent fuel cladding protection as that provided by the current cycle limit of 1.04.-
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the m'rgin of safety.
a The Commission has also provided examples of amendments that are considered not-likely to involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7744). One such example, (i)-is a purely administrative change to technical specifications, for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change -in nomenclature.
The changes to Technical Specification 5.3.1 are purely administrative in nature and, as such, do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
E2-2
c,
.g' f'
q r
ENC 1hSURE 3 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT,. UNIT NO. l'
-DOCKET No. 50 325/ LICENSE NO. DPR-71 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT FUEL CYC118 ~ - REIDAD' LICENSING
' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGES - UNIT 1
- i
'i i
4
-i i
i I