ML20091C904
| ML20091C904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20091C902 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204070198 | |
| Download: ML20091C904 (4) | |
Text
,
g'%
o UNITED STATES
,.n (
{
,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASMGTOV D C MM
%.'...
- p ENCLOSURE 2 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE Of NUCLEAR PfACTOR LEGULATION REL ATING TO A!GNDMENT NO.146 TO FACillTY OPERATING LICE 6SE NO. DPR-79 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY SEOUOYAH NUCLEAR FLANT,, UNIT 2 DOCVET f.0. 50 3ff; l.0 INTR 0000110N By letter dated May 21, 1991, and supplemented by letter dated August
- 3. 1991, Specifications (15)y Authority (the licensee) proposed changes to the (ecnnical the Tennessee Valle for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would inodify specifications having cycle-specific parameter limits by replacing the values of those limits with a reference to a Core Operating Lirnits Resort (COLR) for the values of those linits.
The proposed changes also include the addition cf the COLR to the Definitions section anc' to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS. Guidance on the proposed changes was developd by NRC on the basis cf the review of a lead-plant proposal submitted on the Oconee plant docket by Duke Power Compan,v. This guidance was provideo to all pcmer reactor licensees anzi applicants by Generic Letter 88-16, dated October 4,1988.
The licensee's letter dated August 23, 1991, provided clarifying information arai changes to the TS Bases that oid not change the initial proposed no signi-ficant bazards consideration determinati',n.
2.0 EVALUAT10fj The licensee's proposed changes to the 15 are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 68-16 and are addressed below.
(1) The Definition section of the TS was rrodified to include a d(finition of the COLR that requires cycle / reload--specific parameter limits to be established on a unit-specific basis in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory i
Cornission (NRC) approved methcdologies that maintain the limits of the i
safety analysis.
The definition irdicates that plant operation within l
these limits is addressed by inoividual specifications.
l (2) The following. specifications were revised to replace the values of l
cycle-specific parameter limits with a refererce to the COLR thht l
provides these limits:
l 920407019e 920330 PDR ADOCK 05000320
+
P PDR
(al Specification 3.1.1.J and Surveillance Requirernent 4.1.1.3 The moderator teaperature coefficier.t (HTC) limits for this specification and for this surveillance requirement are specified in the COLR.
(b) Specification 3.1.3.5 ar4 Surveillance Requirernent 4.1.3.5 The shutdown bank Insertion limit far this specification and for this surveillance requicement is specified in the COLR, (c) Specification 3.1.3.6 The control tank insertion limits for this specification are specified in the COLR.
(d) Specification 3.2.1 The axial fiux differerte limits as a function of rated thermal power for this specification are specified in the C0lR.
(e) Specification 3.2.2 and Surveillance Requirement 4.2.2 The total peaking factor (f ) lirait at rated thermal power, the q
normalized f limit as a function of core height K(:), and the cycle g
dependent function that accounts for power distribution transients encountered during normal operation, W( ), for this specification and for this surveillence requirement are specified in the COLR.
(f) Specificaticn 3.2.3 U
The nuclear er thalpy rise hot channel factor (F -delta-H) limit at s
rated thermal powe; and the power f actor multiplice (FF-deltt.-li) for this specification are specified in the COLR.
Changes to the bases of the af fected specifications and Basis 2.1.1 have been provided by the licensee to include appropiate reference to the COLR.
Based on our review, we conclude that the changes to these bases are acceptable.
(3) Specification 6.9.1.14 is revised to delete a previous reporting require-rent on Paaring factor Limit Report and to add the COLR to the reporting requirements of the Administrative P 7trols section of the TS. This specification requires that the COLR ce subrnitted, 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 litrits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle. Further-trore, 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 Westinghouse (W) methodologies are the following:
~3-(a)
WCAP-92,.-P-A, %stinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology,"
July 1985 (W Proprietary).
(Methodology for 5).ecification 3.1.1.3 - Moderator Temperatere Coefficient, 3.1.3.5 - Shutdcwn Bank Insertion L M t, 3.1.3.6 -
Control Bank Insertion Limit. 3.2.1 - Axial Flux Di*fe ence, 3.2.2 -
Heat FlHA Hot Channel Factor, and 3.2.3 - Nuclear Enthalpy Rise Hot Channel factor.)
(b) WCAP-10216-P-A, " Relaxation of Constant Axial Offret Control F SurveillanceTechnicalSpecification," June 1983(WProprietarh).
(Methodology for Specificatiers 3.2.1 - Axial Flux Difference (Relaxeo Axiel Offset Control) and 3.2.2 - Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor W(z) Ourveillance requirerents for F methodology)).
g (c) WCAP-10266-P-A, Revision 2, "The 1981 Version of Westirighouse F. valuation Model Using BASH Code." March 1907 (W or oprietary).
(Methodalojy for Specification 3.2.2 - Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor.)
Finally, the gecification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be docunenttd in the COLR before each reload cycle or remsining part of a reload cycle and :,ut,mitted upon istuance to NRC, prior to operation with the eew peiameter limits.
On the basis of the review of the above iter % the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided an acceptable respon:c to Generic Letter 88-16 for removing cycle-specific parameter lirrits from the TS.
Becaute plant operation continues to be limited in accorJance with the values of the cycle-specific parameter limits that are established using NRC approved methodnlogies, the NRC staff concludes that this change is administrative in nature and there is no impact on plant sefety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff find; that the proposed changes are accepts.ble.
As part of the irplementation of Generic Let.+.er BT3-16, the staf f 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.
The licener also proposed a chenge to the Action Statement c.2 of Specifica-tion 3.1.3.1, to ref erence Specif ication 3.1.3.6 instead of F :gure 3.1-1.
This change was necessary because the figure has been relocated to the COLR.
Consequently, this change is acministrative in nature and is acceptable.
Other changes to the Bases sections proposed by the licensee consist of informa-tion which clarifies the referenced sections.
They are, therefore, acceptable.
4 3.0
SUMMARY
We have reviewed the request by the Tennessee Valley Authority to nodify the Technical Specif s ations of the Sequoyah plants that would remove the specific salues of some 4.
le-dependent parameters from the specifications and niace the values in a re Operating Limits Report that would be referenced by the specifications, cased on this review, we conclude that these Technical Specification modifications are acceptable.
A.0 STATE CONSULTATION in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Tennessee State official was notified of the proposed issuante of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENV!PONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amandment changes a requirement with respect tc installation or use of a f acility component locattd within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20 and changes to the Surveillance Requirements.
In addition, this 3mendment changes reporting or administrative procedures or recairements. The NRC staff has determired that the amendment involves no significant increase tha the amounts, and no signficant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individus1 or
_~
cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed findirg that the amencaert involves no significant hazards consideration, and there !ws been no public concent on such finding (56 FR 31443). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
6.0 C0!!CLUS10N The Co:nmission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) thrre is reasonabie assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangerad by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be iniaical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Huang Date: March 30, 1992 i
.