ML20100D280
| ML20100D280 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100D275 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-56336, TAC-56337, NUDOCS 8504020377 | |
| Download: ML20100D280 (6) | |
Text
[rm jo UNITED STATES g
y g(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- ,...#...o SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND TO AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17 DUKE POWER COMPANY PCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 1.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated November 16, 1984, Duke Power Company requested changes to Technical Specifications to reflect the transition to the use of optimized fuel assemblies (0FA). One of the requested changes was addressed by Amendment Nos. 39 and 20 to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating Licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17, respectively. This evalua-tion addresses the remaining changes.
II.
EVALUATION This submittal is closely related to previous submittals by Duke Power Company for the Unit I first reload and for the generic transition to 0FA loadings for Units 1 and 2 (enclosures to references 2 and 3).
The Unit 2, Cycle 2 reload is very similar to the. Unit 1, Cycle 2 reload and change to 0FA fuel, and almost everything reviewed and approved for it and the associated Technical Specification changes as described by Amendment Nos. 32 and 13 to McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating Licenses NPF-9 and NPF-17, respectively, is directly applicable to Unit 2.
Unit 2 is being reloaded with 60 new 0FA fuel assemblies as was Unit 1.
The core parameters related to transient analyses, for the most part, will remain within the range covered by the approved generic transition of 0FA analyses as did Unit 1.
Where these parameters are changed, the transient events have been reexamined. There are a number of changes to Unit 2 relating to analysis methodology changes and operational parameter changes. These were covered in the Unit I and generic reviews. The following changes for Unit 2 were evaluated and found acceptable in the previous Unit 1 Amendment No. 32 and need not be further evaluated here.
1.
Change to 0FA fuel; fuel mec'anical design, nuclear design, thermal-hydraulic design 2.
Change in axial power distribution control from constant axial offset control (CAOC) to relaxi.d axial offset control (RAOC) or base load operation 3.
Change from standard thermal-hydraulic design methodology to improved therrral-design procedure using WRB-1 8504020377 050322 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
. 4.
Change to allow a positive Moderator Temperature Coefficient over part of the operating power range 5.
Change of shutdown margin in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4 from 1.6 to 1.3 percent delta k 6.
Change of FAH power dependent modifier from 0.2 to 0.3 7.
Removal of rod bow related requirement for F 3g.
As with the Unit I relo'ad, core nuclear parameters for Unit 2 reload fall within bounds used in analyses for the generic 0FA submittal analyses, and new transient and accident analyses are not required because of these parameters. As with Unit 1, the dropped rod events were reanalyzed for Unit 2, as required by the approved methodology, and were satisfactory.
Differences from
- Unit 1 Review The Unit 2 submittal (and review) differs from the Unit 1 submittal and (2) y in two areas, (1) a new loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analysis, primaril a reevaluation of transients and accidents because of a core flow reduction relative to the generic 0FA and Unit I reload analyses.
LOCA LOCA for Unit I was reanalyzed using analysis applicable for transition and full 0FA cores for McGuire 1 and 2 as discussed in the generic transi-tion 0FA report. However, the Unit 2 analysis used BART (WCAP-9561) for core reflood heat transfer calculations.
BART is approved for use on non-UHI plants but had not been approved for a UHI plant such as McGuire Unit 2.
This methodology and the analysis for Unit 2 have been reviewed and are acceptable. This analysis for Unit 2 met LOCA criteria using a power peaking factor, F, of 2.26, and this value has been incorporated in the Unit 2 TechnicalgSpecifications.
Reduced Core Flow The generic transition OFA submittal assumed a Thermal Design Flow (TDF) of 386,000 gpm.
For Unit 2 Cycle 2 the TDF will be 382,000 gpm. This is a one percent reduction in core flow from the approved analysis. As a result of this reduction, all relevant transients and accident analyses from the generic report were reexamined and when necessary reanalyzed and departure from nucleate boiling (DNB) and non-MB linits evaluated; and the protection system setpoints and time constants were reviewed and recalculated and changed where necessary.
The reexanination verified that the core DNB limits are unchanged from the generic 0FA report and Unit I reload values, and the DNB basis is net for all the relevant transients.
The Technical Specification limits relating to DNB remain unchanged but the vessel exit boiling linits become more restrictive.
Each event in which non-DNB limits are of interest was also reexamined.
The control rod withdrawal at zero power, loss of load, steamline break and locked rotor events were reexamined to verify that fuel and clad temperature and system pressure changes (which were all small) would remain within limits.
For the steamline break this was determined via conclusiens that the return to power was less severe. The loss of feedwater/ station blackout, rupture of main feedwater line, and limiting control rod e.iection events were reanalyzed with reduced flow and found to fall within limits. The primary events for overtemperature and over-power AT trip protectio'n, control rod withdrawal at power and small steam-line breaks, were reanalyzed, using new setpoints and time constants and met DNB limits.
For the loss of feedwater/ station blackout and rupture of main feedwater line events the steam generator level low-low setpoint used a revised value in the reanalysis, and these values are in the new Technical Specifi-cations.
The new LOCA analysis used the reduced flow value.
Our review of this reexamination has concluded that a suitable examination of the effects of the decreased flow has been carried out and, with the related review of the Technical Specifications, appropriate core limits will be maintainej.
Technical Specifications A number of Technical Specification changes are proposed for the Unit 2 Cycle 2 reload operation. Most of these changes are the same as (or have only minor variations from) those for Unit 1, Cycle 2.
This applies to both specification changes and corresponding bases changes.
The Unit 2 changes were presented both in Attachment I and Attachment 2A to the November 16, 1984, submittal. Attachment 1 also contained a few Technical Specification changes for both Units 1 and 2 that are primarily administra-tive changes. We have reviewed the proposed changes,(from Attachment 1) line by line, and find them acceptable. The following list of changes does not include further discussion where the change has already been discussed in the previous Unit 1 Amendment No. 32.
Technical Specification Changes Section 2.1; Figure 2.1-1b: The safety limits for DNB for Unit 2 have not further changed beyond the changes resulting from the use of OfA fuel and corresponding changes in analyses methodology discussed in the Unit 1 SER, but the boiling limits are more restrictive because of the change in core flow.
The bases for Section 2.1 have changed to reflect the OFA related thermal-hydraulic methodology changes. These chances are acceptable.
. Section 2.2; Table 2.2-1: The change to a lower core flow, to the altered steam generator water level low-low setpoint, and to the overpower and over temperature T setpoints and time constants for Unit 2 are given in this table. These changes are approved as a result of the review of the analyses of the effects of the flow and setpoint changes on transients and accidents and the chan methodology (as in Unit 1)ges from using 0FA fuel and the related The procedures and methodology for overoower, overtemperature T trip setpoint changes (Reference A) are standard as used for all cycles of Westinghouse designed reactors approved by the staff and are acceptabl,e.
Section 3/4.1.1.1 and Bases (and Bases for 3/4.1.2): The change for the shutdown margin in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4 is from 1.6 to 1.3 percent ok as in Unit 1.
Section 3/4.1.1.3: This change is to allow a positive moderator tempera-ture coefficient'as in Unit 1.
Section 3/4.2.1 and Bases: The change is from CAOC to RAOC and Base Load Operation as in Unit 1 (including the supplemental review for Unit 1 Base Load).
Section 3/4.2.2: The change in Unit 2 to an F of 2.26 is approved as a result of the approval of.the LOCA analysis us9ng this value. The change to F surveillance (from F surveillance) is as in Unit 1.
g xy Section 3/4.2.3: The change in the F power factor from 0.2 to 0.3 and theeliminationoftherodbowfactor$reasinUnit1.
Table 3.3-2 and 3.3-4: The changes in time constants and setpoints are the same as in Section 2.2, Table 2.2-1.
Section 3/4.3.3.2:
This change in Unit 2 and for consistency, in Unit 1, reflects the elimination of F surveillance.
xy Section 3.5.1.1: The cold leg injection accumulator volume and pressure values are changed to those used in the LOCA analyses and are acceptable.
Section 6.9.1.9:
This is a reporting requirement for W (z) values for RAOC as in Unit 1.
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These anendments involve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significent increase in the amounts, and no sionificant change in the types, of any effluents that nay be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational
exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility (criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c) 9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connec-tion with the issuance of these amendments.
IV.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a p'roposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (49 FR 50802) on December 31, 1984, and consulted with the state of North Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any comments.
We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regu-lations, and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
V.
REFERENCES 1.
Letter to H. R. Denton (NRC) from H. B. Tucker (Duke Power) "McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 2/ Cycle 2 0FA Reload", November 16, 1984.
2.
LettertoE.G.Adensam(NRC)fromH.B. Tucker (DukePower)"McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 1/ Cycle 2 0FA Reload", December 12, 1983.
3.
Letter to E. G. Adensam (NRC) from H. B. Tucker (Duke Power) "McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370", November 14, 1983.
4.
S. L. Ellenberger, et al., " Design Basis for the Thermal Overpower T and Thermal Overtemperature AT Trip Functions", WCAP-8745, March 1977.
Principal Contributors: Jon B. Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL Howard J. Richings, Core Performance Branch, D!!
Dated: March 22, 1985
M:rch 22, 1985 AMENDMENT NO. 42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 23 70 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTION:
et Nos. 50-369/370 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC LB #4 r/f E. Adensam J. Hopkins M. Duncan Attorney, OELD R. Digas, ADM T. Barnhart (8)
E. L. Jordan, DE0A:I&E L. J. Harmon, I&E File D. Brinkman D. Hood B. Grimes J. Portlow H. Richings
.1.,
i;,,
,A -
,.//
/
c.
p'l 7,.,