ML20058L374
| ML20058L374 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058L373 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-88-16, NUDOCS 9008070133 | |
| Download: ML20058L374 (5) | |
Text
__
=.
.,,.f l
o UNITED STATES g
J.
,, c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
%,..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO.
12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 l
DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425 l
YOGTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 i
l-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l l
i By letter dated March 22, 1990, GeorgiaPowerCompany,etal.,(thelicensee) l proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Vogtle Electric Generating I'lant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would modify l
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 requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TSs. 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 Company. This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees and applicants by Generic Letter 88-16 dated October 4, 1988.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's proposed changes to the TSs are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are addressed below.
' (1) The Definitions section of the TSs was modified to include a definition of the COLR that requires cycle / reload-specific parameter limits to be estab-lished on a unit-s ecific basis in accordance with NRC-approved methodologies that maintain the imits of the safety analysis.
The definition notes that l
plant operation within these limits is addressed by individual specifications.
(2) The following specifications were revised to replace the values of cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the COLR that provides these limits.
(a) Specification 3.1.1.1 and Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.1 The shutdown margin (SDM) limit for Modes 1 and 2 for this specification and surveillance requirement is specified in the COLR.
9008070133 900730 PDR ADOCK 05000424 P
1
)
(b) Specification 3.1.1.2 i
The shutdown margin (50M) limits for Modes 3, 4, and 5 for this specification are specified in the COLR.
(c) Specification 3.1.1.3 and Surveillance Requirement 4.1.1.3 l
The moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) limits for this specifi-cation and surveillance requirement are specified in the COLR.
(d) Specification 3.1.3.5 and Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.5 i
The shutdown bank insertion limit for this specification and surveillance requirement is specified in the COLR.
j (e) Specification 3.1.3.6 The control bank insertion limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
(f) Specification 3.2.1 The axial flux difference limits for this specification are i
specified in the COLR.
(g) Specification 3.2.2 and Surveillance Requirement 4.2.2 The total peaking factor (F ) limit at rated thermal power, the normalized (F)limitasa9unctionofcoreheightK(z),theplanar peaking facto 9 limits (Ffor E )s, and the power factor multiplier (P fordeterminingF)Ecifiedint1eCOLR.
i specification and surveillance requirement are s (h) Specification 3.2.3 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 are specified in the COLR.
These changes to the specifications also required changes to the bases.
Based on our review, we conclude that the changes to these bases are acceptable.
e (3) Specification 6.8.1.6 is revised to delete a previous reporting requirement on Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report and to add the Core Operating Limits Report-to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS. This specification 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 rs
-r
l 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 Tenperature Coefficcient, 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) WRAP-8385, " Power Distribution Control and Load Following Procedures -
Topical Report," September 1974 (W Proprietary).
(Methodology for Specification 3.2.1-AxialFluxDifference[ConstantAxialOffset Control).)
(c)
T. M. Anderson to' K. Kniel (Chief of Core Performance Branch, NRC)
January 31, 1980 --
Attachment:
Operation and Safety Analysis Aspects of an Improved Load Follow Package.
(Methodology for Specification 3.2.1-AxialfluxDifference[ConstantAxialOffset Control).)
(d) NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Section 4.3, Nuclear Design, July 1981. Branch Technical Position CPB4.3-1,WestinghouseConstantAxialOffsetControl(CAOC),Rev.2 July 1981.
(Methodology for Specification 3.2.1 - Axial Flux Difference
[ConstantAxialOffsetControl].)
(e) WCAP-9220-P-A, Rev. 1. " Westinghouse ECCS Evaluation Model-1981 Version," February 1982 (W Proprietary).
(Methodolo Specification 3.2.2 - Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor.)gy for Finally, the specification recuires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documentec 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 the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits in TSs.' Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are established using NRC approved methodologies, the NRC staff concludes that this change is administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed changes are acceptable.
I
o As part of the implementation of Generic Letter 88-16, the NRC staff has also reviewed a sample COLR that was provided by the licensee. On the basis of this review, the staff concludes that the format and content of the sample COLR are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve ch6,'ges in requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements. The staff has deter-mined that the amendments involve no significant increase in 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 amenoments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligi-bility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pur-suant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 CONLUSION The Commission's proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration was published in the Federal _ Register on April 18, 1990 (55 FR 14506). The Ccmission consulted with the State of Georgia.
No public connents were received, and the State of Georgia did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations oiscussed 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 Comission's regulations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Daniel Fieno, SRXB/ DST Dated:
July 30, 1990
DATED:
July 30, 1990 AMENDMENT NO.
32 TO ' FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF Vogtle Electric Generating P1 art, Unit 1 AMENDMENT NO.
12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 2 DISTRIBUTIONt Docket File NRC/ Local PDR PDII-3 R/F Vogtle R/F SVarga 14-E-4 Glainas 14-H-3 DMatthews 14-H-25 RIngram 14-H-25 Treed 14-D-14 OGC-WF 15-B-18 EJordan HNBB-3302 WJones P-130A GHill(8)
P-137 ACRS(10)
P-135 GPA/PA 17-F-2 OC/LFMB AR-2015 I
DHagan MNBB-3302 JCalvo OWFN l
L i
l l
t i
003020
,