ML20128M069
| ML20128M069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128M060 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-56746, TAC-56747, NUDOCS 8505310566 | |
| Download: ML20128M069 (5) | |
Text
/[
UNITED STATES 3
s, r.( [ n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E, g)h7 /. J WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 Y$
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
+
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-9 AND TO AMENDMENT NO. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-17
~
DUKE POWER COMPANY MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated January 11, 1985, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to Technical Specifications to reflect the second in a series of refueling stages associated with the continuing transition to the use of optimized fuel assemblies at McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
That transition began with the first Unit I refueling for fuel Cycle 2 which was authorized April 20, 1984, by License Amendment 32.
Unit 1, Cycle 2 has now completed operation with a transition core consisting of approximately 1/3 Westinghouse 17 x 17 Optimized Fuel Assemblies (OFAs) and 2/3 Westinghouse 17 x 17 low-parasitic fuel assemblies (STDs). Unit 2 began the same transition with its first refueling which was authorized March 22, 1985, by License Amendment 23.
During the present refueling outage for Unit 1 (Cycle 3), the licensee plans to replace approximately another 1/3 of the original total STDs with 0FAs.
The transition will continue with future reloads until an all 0FA fueled core is achieved.
submittal (i.e.,
Some of the changes requested in the January)11, 1985, those in Appendix A of Attachment 2A thereto repeated requests contained in an earlier licensee's submittal for Unit 2/ Cycle 2 0FA reload which was under staff review at that time.
Those changes have been approved by Unit 1, Amendment 42 (issued concurrently with Unit 2, Amendment 23), and therefore are not discussed here.
Changes in content of technical specifications addressed by this amendment are limited to Unit 1.
Changes to Unit 2 specifications by this amendment are administrative changes which eliminate the distinctions between units within the common document.
II.
EVALUATION The licensee's submittal of January 11, 1985, requested changes to the Technical Specifications consistent with the design and safety evaluations presented in an accompanying report entitled Reload Safety Evaluation (RSE), McGuire Nuclear Station Unit 1 Cycle 3.
All change requests and supporting analyses within that submittal have been previously reviewed by the staff based upon previous licensee submittals for (1) the generic transition to 0FA loadings (reference 1) and the Unit I first reload (reference 2), or for (2) a corresponding change for the Unit 2 first reload (reference 3). Although under review at the time of the January 11, 1985, submittal, the Unit 2 first reload was subsequently approved by Unit 2 Amendment 23.
8505310566 850515 DR ADOCM 05000369 p
J a-i
. 4-4 i
Unit 1 Amendment 32-I By. Unit 1 Amendment 32 which authorized Technical Specification changes for the first. reload, the NRC-approved the OFA transition licensing sub-mittal. (reference 1) which justified the compatibility of the OFA design with the STD design in a mixed STD-OFA (transition) core as well as a full OFA core. - That submittal contained fuel design, nuclear design, and thermal-hydraulic. design evaluations which, excep; as discussed below for core design flow, are applicable to the Unit 1 Cycle 3 reload.
The core nuclear parameters for the-Unit 1 Cycle ! reload fall within the bounds used in the safety analyses submitted for the generic 0FA transition licensing and new transient and accident analyses tre not required because of these parameters.
Unit 2 Amendment 23 The licensee's Unit 1 Cycle 3 reload evaluation does contain a reevalua-tion of transients and accidents, including a new LOCA analysis, because of a reduction in core thermal design relative to the generic 0FA analyses.
These, however, are identical to those reevaluated for the Unit 2 Cycle 2 reload and approved by Unit 2 Amendment 23.
The generic 0FA transition submittal assumed a thermal design flow (TDF) of 386,000 gpm.
For Unit 1 Cycle 3, the TDF will be 382,000 gpm as was the value for Unit 2 Cycle 2.
As a result of this 1 percent reduction in core flow, all relevant transient and accident analyses were reevaluated
?
and.when necessary, reanalyzed. Also, departure from nucleate boiling 2
(DNB) and non-DNB limits were evaluated and protection system setpoints and time constants were reviewed, recalculated, and changed where neces-sary.
The reexamination verified that the core DNB limits are unchanged from the
~
generic 0FA ' report and the DNB basis is met for all relevant transients.
- The Technical Specification limits relating to DNB remain. unchanged but as with Unit 2 Cycle 2, the vessel exit boiling limits become more restrictive.
Each event in which non-DNB limits are of interest was also reexamined.
t
. The control rod withdrawal at zero power, loss of load, steamline break i
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 conclusions.that the return to power was less severe. The loss of feedwater/ station blackout, rupture of main feedwater line, and limiting control rod ejection events were reanalyzed with reduced flow and found to fall within limits.
The primary events for overtemperature and over-power AT trip protection, control rod withdrawal at power and small steam-3 line breaks, were reanalyzed using new setpoints and time constants and met DNB limits.
i
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 Specifications.
The new LOCA analysis used the reduced flow value.
Our review of this reexamination has concluded that the events correspond to those which were previously reviewed and approved for Unit 2 Cycle 2 and are applicable for Unit 1 Cycle 3, 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 maintained.
Technical Specifications A number of Technical Specification changes are proposed for the Unit 1, Cycle 3 reload operation. The Unit 1 changes are those presented in to the January 11, 1985, submittal.
These chan same as (or have only minor administrative variations from) ges are the those which were reviewed and approved for Unit 2, Cycle 2.
Accordingly, the changes eliminate distinction between units.
This applies to both specification changes and corresponding bases changes.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and finds them acceptable.
i Technical Specification Changes Figure 2.1-la: The safety limits for DNB for Unit I have not further changed beyond the changes resulting from the use of 0FA fuel and corres-ponding changes in analysis methodology discussed in Unit 1 Amendment 32 (Cycle 2), but the boiling limits are more restrictive because of the change in core flow reviewed and approved in the Unit 2 Cycle 2 Amendment.
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 6T setpoints and time constants for Unit I are given in this table.
These changes were approved as a result of the review of the analyses of the effects of the flow and setpoir.t changes on transients and accidents and the changes from using 0FA fuel and the related methodolgy.
The procedures and methodology for overpower, overtempera-ture AT trip setpoint changes (Reference 4) are standard as used for all cycles of Westinghouse designed reactors approved by the staff and are acceptable.
Section 3/4.2.1 and Bases, Section 3/4.2.2 and Figure 3.2-2a: The change in the target band for the axial flux difference is due to the change from CAOC to RAOC and Base Load Operation.
The change to an F of 2.26 n
is approved as a result of the approval of the LOCA analysis using this value.
The change to Figure 3.2-2a reflects the change to an F 0 0
using approved Westinghouse methodology for determining K(Z) as a function of F.
g 4
,,._y
t,
i Figure 3.2-3a: The change reflects the elimination of the rod bow factor as in Unit 2 Cycle 2.
Table 3.3-2: The changes in response times reflect the changes in time constants as indicated in Table.2.2-1.
-Table 3.3-4: The changes in setpoint for steam generator water level are the same as in Table 2.2-1.
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments invol.ve a change in use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes-in i
surveillance requirements.
The 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 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 4
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 proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (50 FR 7985) on February 27, 1985, and consulted with the state of North Carolina.
No public comments were received, and the state of-t North Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
i (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manne'r, and (2) public such i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regula-tions, 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 E. G. Adensam (NRC) from H. B. Tucker (Duke Power) "McGuire
'~
Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370," November 14, 1983.
2.
Letter to E. G. Adensam (NRC) from H. B. Tucker (Duke Power) "McGuire Nuclear Station, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire 1/ Cycle 2 0FA Reload," December 12, 1983.
4 3.
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 Re, load," November 16, 1984s 4.
S. L. E11enberger, et al., " Design Basis for the Thermal Overpower AT and _ Thermal Overtemperature AT Trip Functions," WCAP-8745, March 1977.
Principal Contributors:
Darl S. Hood, Licensing Branch No. 4 DL Laurence I. Kopp, Core Performance Branch, DSI Dated:
May 15,1985
p May 15, 1985 AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTION:
cket Nos. 50-369/370 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC LB #4 r/f E. Adensam J. Hopkins M. Duncan Attorney, OELD R. Diggs, ADM T. Barnhart (8)
E. L. Jordan, DEQA:1&E L. J. Harmon, I&E File D. Hood B. Grimes J. Partlow L. Kopp E. Butcher
+
6 0
Certificd By
[g
-