ML20117H486
| ML20117H486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dow Chemical Company, Farley |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117H474 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9609090296 | |
| Download: ML20117H486 (4) | |
Text
q f* Wu
- M k
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.121 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2
~
AND AMENDMENT NO.113 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC.
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DGCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 12, 1996, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al. (SNC or the licensee) proposed to amend the Farley Nuclear Plant (FNP)
Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes revise the reactor core safety limits, Overtemperature delta T (0 TDT) and Overpressure delta T (0PDT) reactor trip setpoints and allowable values, and the power distribution limits associated with implementation of Relaxed Axial Offset Control (RAOC) and F surveillance.
The changes also include revising the TS Bases associated witYi these specifications and surveillances, the nuclear enthalpy hot channel factor (FL) inoperable main steamline safety valves limit for low parasitic (LOPAR) fuel, the neutron high flux setpoints for (MSSVs), and the administrative requirements for the Peaking Factor Limit Report.
1 In addition to the TS changes, the SNC letter also transmitted Westinghouse report NSD-NT-0PL-96-152, Revision 2 (Proprietary), " Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 & 2 Licensing Report for Technical Specification Changes Associated With Revised Core Limits, Revised OTAT/0 PAT Trip Setpoints and Inclusion of RAOC Control Strategy."
2.0 EVALUATION The following specific TS changes have been proposed for the FNP Units 1 and 2:
(1) TS 2.1 Reactor Core Safety Limits (Figure 2.1-1 and Bases)
Since FNP is completing the transition from a full core of LOPAR fuel to a full core of VANTAGE 5 fuel, the reactor core safety limits given in Figure 2.1-1 are being revised to reflect VANTAGE 5 fuel as the most limiting fuel design. The revised limits are based on the approved Revised Thermal Design Procedure (RTDP) methodology and the WRB-2 Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB) correlation. Therefore, these proposed changes are acceptable.
9609090296 960903 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
.k h
. i (2) TS 3/4.2.3 Nuclear Enthalpy Hot Channel Factor and Bases In order to ensure that VANTAGE $ fuel will remain limiting with respect to DN8 and that any burned LOPAR assembly that may be reinserted into the core will not be limiting and thus invalidate the proposed new core limits, the FL limit for LOPAR fuel has been reduced from 1.55 to 1.30 in TS 3/4.2.3.
Since the current loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analysis bounds this value, LOCAs are not affected by this reduced F".
Any reinserted LOPAR assembly will have
~
an F" lower than this limit, and MC will verify the proposed core limits to be ac,ceptable prior to reinsertion of any LOPAR assemblies. Therefore, these
+
proposed changes are acceptable.
(3) TS 2.2 Reactor Trip' System Instrument Trip Setpoints (Table 2.2-1 and Bases)
Changes to the OTDT and OPDT reactor trip setpoint equations are being made as a result of the changes to the core safety limits to reflect Farley specific i
uncertainties. These include changes in the K1, K2, K3, K4, and K6 constants defined in Notes I and 2 of Table 2.2-1 from 1.14, 0.0250, 0.001275,1.07, and O.00165 to 1.17, 0.017, 0.000825, 1.10, and 0.00109, respectively. The corresponding allowable values in Notes 3 and 6 will also be changed. A reanalysis or a reevaluation of all DNB-related events which use OTDT and OPDT as the primary reactor trip by FNP has shown that all acceptance criteria continue to be met. Therefore, these proposed changes are acceptable.
(4) TS 3/4.2.1 Axial Flux Difference (AFD) and Bases TS 3/4.2.2 Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor - F, and Bases The change in axial offset control strategy from the current' Constant Axial Offset Control (CAOC) to RA00 requires changes to the axial flux difference (AFD) specification as well as the replacement of the F surveillance y
methodology with the F,lculational procedure that defines the allowedsurveillance m function.
RAOC is a ca
. operational space of the AFD versus thermal power. The RA0C strategy has been reviewed and approved by the NRC in WCAP-10216-P-A. The proposed TS changes are consistent with those approved for use with RA0C and F, surveillance. The, effects of axial power shapes resulting from the implementation of RA0C for normal operation, operational transients, and during transients arising from faults of moderate frequency have been evaluated by FNP and all acceptance criteria continue to be met. Therefore, these proposed changes are acceptable.
(5) TS 6.9.1.11 Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report The change to RAOC requires changes to the penalty factors specified in the Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report (RPFLR).
Since the cycle dependent function, W(z), and the burnup dependent F,*(z) penalty factors required for calculation of F,'(z) specified in LC0 3.2.2 will now be documented in the RPFLR in accordance with the RA0C methodology, these proposed changes are acceptable.
3
, (6) TS 3.7 Maximum Allowable Power Range Flux High Setpoint with Inoperable Main Steamline Safety Valve During 3 Loop Operation (Table 3.7-1)
TS Table 3.7-1 defines the maximum power levels at which the FNP units can operate with 1, 2, or 3 inoperable main steam safety valves (MSSVs) on any loop. A burnup dependent setpoirit for operation with one MSSV out of service was developed to provide maximum plant flexibility and operability.
For core average burnups up to 14,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWD /MTU), a setpoint of 60% of rated thermal power (RTP) has been established.
For higher burnups, the current setpoint of 87% RTP remains acceptable.
The reduced high neutron flux reactor trip setpoints are based on a plant-specific analysis which model a direct trip on the revised 0 TDT equation.
This analysis, performed by Westinghouse for FNP, confirmed that these setpoints ensure adequate protection throughout the entire fuel cycle.
Therefore, this revision to the allowable high setpoints is acceptable.
3.0
SUMMARY
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes to the FNP safety limits, reactor trip setpoints, high neutron flux setpoints for MSSVs out of service, FllpointsweredeterminedusingtheNRCapprovedDNBmethodologies,name for LOPAR, and the use of RA0C strategy. The core safety limits and trip se RTDP, and approved DNB correlations. All safety analyses transients and accidents that are protected by the OTDT and OPDT trips were reanalyzed or evaluated and continue to meet all acceptance criteria with the revised setpoints.
LOCA analyses are not affected by any of the proposed changes.
Based on this, the staff has determined that the proposed changes to the FNP TS are acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of Alabama official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change the surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, j
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 amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR j
40029 dated July 31,1996). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
)
i ;
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. Kopp Date:
September 3, 1996 e
h v
e A