ML20077S681
| ML20077S681 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077S680 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9501240203 | |
| Download: ML20077S681 (2) | |
Text
_..
1 UNITED STATES 2
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001
\\,
/
f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 79 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO. 58 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 i
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET Al..__
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425 1.0 INTRODUCTIDH By letter dated May 20, 1994, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) proposed license amendments to change the Technical Specifications (TS) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would relocate the heat flux hot channel factor, F z), penalty of 2 percent in TS 4.2.2.2.f to the cycle-specific Core Operating Ll(mits Report (COLR) to allow for burnup-dependent values of the penalty in excess of 2 percent. The proposed amendments also revise the reference in TS 6.8.1.6 to the F (z) surveillance methodology in order to reflect Revision 1 of WCAP-10216-P, gRelaxation of Constant Axial Offset Control -
FQ Surveillance Technical Specification," approved by the NRC on November 26, 1993.
Revision I accounts for F,(z) increases greater than 2 percent between measurements.
2.0 EVALUATION F (z) is the maximum local heat flux on the surface of a fuel rod at core elevation az, divided by the average fuel rod heat flux. For Vogtle, F,(z) is shown to be within its limits by performing periodic measurements.
Since F z) surveillance is only required when power has been increased by 20 percent of ral(ed power from th previous surveillance, or at least every 31 effective full power days (EFPD), the TSs take into account the possibility that F,(z) may increase between surveillances.
The TSs require that when performing the surveillance, the resulting maximum F,(z) value must be compared to the maximum F (z) determined from the previous measurement.
If the maximum F,(z) has increased slnce the previous determination of F (z), the TS allow two options: either the current F (z) must be a
increased by an ad$itional 2.0 percent to account for further increases in F,(z) before the next surveillance, or the surveillance period must bc reduced to every seven EFPD.
The F z) penalty of 2.0 percent was based on the Westinghouse assumption that F, would,(change by no more than 2.0 percent between monthly flux maps.
This assumption was based on calculations for core designs which pre-date the low leakage loading patterns, high amounts of burnable poisons, and 18-month cycles typical of recent cores.
Some recent Westinghouse-designed cores typical of the cores at Vogtle have experienced increases in the measured F (z) as high as 5 to 6 a
percent between monthly flux maps over certain burnup ranges. Therefore, for those cores which are predicted to have larger increases in F,(z) over certa' burnup 9501240203 950111 PDR ADOCK 05000424 p
e
.. ranges, a larger penalty will be provided on a cycle-specific basis. The penalties will be calculated using NRC-approved methods.
The proposed change involves only the manner in which the penalty factors for F (z) would be specified (i.
e., a burnup-dependent factor specified in the COLR vers,us a constant factor specified in the TS). TS 4.2.2.2.f has been modified to reflect the inclusion of the burnup dependent factor in the COLR.
In accordance with Generic Letter 88-16, " Removal of Cycle-Specific Parameters from Technical Specifications," the licensee has included WCAP-10126-P-A, Rev.1-A in the Administrative Reporting Requirements Section of TS 6.8.1.6 as the approved methodology. Since the penalty factors specified in the COLR will be calculated using NRC-approved methodology they will therefore continue to provide a level of protection equivalent to the existing TS requirement.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The amendments also change administrative procedures or requirements.
The NRC staff has determined 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 37072). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the isstance of the amendments.
5.0 MELUSION The Comission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of l
1 the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
L. Wheeler L. Kopp Date: January 11, 1995
.