ML20050D119
| ML20050D119 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050D116 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-47574, NUDOCS 8204120066 | |
| Download: ML20050D119 (2) | |
Text
~
hf o
UNITED STATES
(/' g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$.'[)#[t n
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\;. w... /,
./
SAFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICE5FNUCLEARREACTORREGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO LICENSE NO. DPR-46 NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT DOCKET NO. 50-298 COOPER NUCLEAR STATION Author: Byron Siegel
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 31,1981(1) Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications for the Cooper Nuclear Station. The effect of the amendment would be to extend the exposure range of the llaximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) versus average planar exposure values for the 7x7 (types 2 and 3) and 8x8 (types 8D250, 8D274L, P8DRB265L, 8DRB283 and P80RB283) fuel assemblies loaded in the core. The proposed extension would provide MAPLHGR limits for the fuel bundle types identified to an average planar exposure of 40,000 !4ld/t which is 10,000 !Wd/t beyond the current exposure range of 30,000 tild/t in the Technical Specifications.
2.0 EVALUATION Tor 7x7 (types 2 and 3) and 8x3 (types 8D250, 80274L, P8DRB265L, 8DRB283 and P8DRB283) fuel types the licensee proposed to extend the burnup time from 30,000 to 40,000 mwd /t. The licensee has stated (_Ref.1) that they comply with General Electric letters (Refs, 2 and 3) for the MAPLHGR limits.
Therefore, as stated in Ref. 4, we find the proposed extended exposure 11APLHGR limits for these fuel types acceptable. The licensee's proposed generic f1APLHGR curves for these fuel types, which reduce the need for future cycle dependent revisions, have been done with currently approved calculational methods and are in compliance with Refs. 2 and 3; therefore, we conclude these revised curves are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS In addition, the staff considered the proposed changes in the light of Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR Part 51, which addresses uranium fuel cycle and fuel transportation environmental impacts.
The assumed maximum average level of exposure of the irradiated fuel discharge from the reactor used in these analyses is 33,000 MWD /MTU (megawatt days per metric ton) which is equivalent to W 29,000 mwd /t (megawatt days per short ton). ~ Although this amendment establishes MAPLHGR limits for fuel burnup ~out to 40,000 lHd/t, since this limit is based on the peak exposure of the most limiting node of the high burnup fuel assemblies in the core, this amendment B204120066 820401 PDR ADOCK 05000298 P
will not cause the average fuel burnup of 33,000 tGD/liTU (cer29,000 mwd /t) for the irradiated fuel from the reactor to be exceeded.
This is because the peak node in any of the nost highly exposed bundles is typically in the order of 20% greater than the average exposure of these bundles and these most highly exposed bundles are likely to have a 10% higher average exposure than the remainder of the bundles being discharged.
We have detemined that this amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the' standpoint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Section Sl.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental inpact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
~
3.0 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 amendment 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 regulations 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:
' April 1,1982 e
e
9 e
REFEREllCES l.
Letter, J.11. Pflant (fiPPD) to T. A. Ippolito (fiRC), " Proposed Changes to Technical Specifications - IMPLHGR Curves", dated December 31, 1981.
2 Letter, R. E. Engel (.GE) to T. A. Ippolito (flRC), " Extension of Emergency Core Cooling System Performance Limits", dated fiay 6,1981.
3 Letter, R. E. Engel (GE) to T. A, Ippolito (flRC), " Additional Infor-mation Regarding Extension of Emergency Core Cooling System Performance Limits", dated May 28, 1981.
4 tiemorandum, L. S. Rubenstein (liRC) to T. M. tiovak (liRC), " Extension of General Electric Emergency Core Cooling System Performance Limits",
dated June 25, 1981.
e e
9
/:
e e
e
- - - -