ML20141D158
| ML20141D158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141D143 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706260332 | |
| Download: ML20141D158 (4) | |
Text
_ ______.- _ _
p uo p
1 UNITED STATES
[
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20686 0001
. =
4 o
l 4*****g SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 52 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-86
)
NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORPORATION t
j SEABROOK STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-443 i
l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l By letter dated June 19,1997,-the North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation i
(the licensee) submitted a license amendment request to the Seabrook Station l
Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested revision changes the TSs to include an additional reference in TS Administrative Control 6.8.1.6.b, " Core i
Operating Limits Report." Administrative Control 6.8.1.6 b specifies the NRC-j approved methodologies used to determine the parameters specified in the Core j
Operating Limits Report. Specifically, the proposed change revises TS j
Administrative Control 6.8.1.6.b to include a reference to an NRC-approved 1-Westinghouse Topical Report, WCAP-12610-P-A, " VANTAGE + Fuel Assembly Reference.
Core Report," dated April 1995. WCAP-12610-P-A describes the modifications in the Westinghouse Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) evaluation models which account for the presence of and the properties of ZIRLO cladding material.
The Seabrook Station is presently in cold shutdown (NODE 5) ascending, at the completion of Refueling Outage 5, with the current best estimate for achieving criticality (MODE 2) about June 24, 1997.
in order to prevent delay in startup of Seabrook Station, the licensee requested that this amendment be reviewed on an emergency basis pursuant to 10 CFR S0.91(a)(5). The circumstances supporting North Atlantic's request for an emergency review are discussed below.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee submitted license amendment request (LAR)93-18 on November 23, 1993, and received NRC approval in License Amendment 33 on November 23, 1994.
Amendment 33 approved a revision to the TSs to permit operation of Seabrook Station with an expanded axial flux difference band (wide-band operation)
Additionally, TS 6.8.1.6.b was revised to include an updated list of analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits that were previously reviewed and approved by the NRC. At that time, the need to include a reference to WCAP-12610-P-A in this TS was not recognized. The proposed change to.TS Administrative Control 6.8.1.6.b clarifies the list of methodologies that must be used to determine core operating limits.
The addition of the methodology will ensure that,the licensee is required to determine the I
I 9706260332 970624 DR ADOCK 05 4j3 I
~
i 1
values for cycle-specific parameters such that all applicable limits (e.g.,
fuel thermal and mechanical limits, core thermal / hydraulic limits ECCS limits, shutdown margin, and transient and accident analyses limits) are met.
In addition, the methodology cited appropriately models the performance of the Seabrook plant. Therefore, the NRC staff finds that proposed amendment is acceptable.
3.0 EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES On June 18 1997, the NRC staff identified the omission of a reference to a previously NRC-approved Topical Report, WCAP-12610-P-A, in Section 6.8.1.6.b of the Seabrook Station TSs. Core operating limits may only be determined using the NRC-approved methodologies listed in Section 6.8.1.6.b.
Thus, the addition of the methodology to be used for ZIRLO-clad fuel is a prerequisite for the restart of the Seabrook Station. The NRC notified the licensee of this omission of the above-referenced report on June 18, 1997, and requested that the licensee specifically reference WCAP-12610-P-A in the TSs as a methodology used to determine the core operating limits.
Upon notification by the NRC, the licensee responded to the NRC request and submitted an application for a license amendment dated June 19, 1997.
In its amendment request, the licensee requested that the Application for an amendment be reviewed on an emergency basis. The licensee provided justification that an emergency existed by stating:
"The review of this amendment request as an i
emergency situation is justified considering the importance of resuming power operation at Seabrook Station expeditiously. As a result of the June 18, 1997 conference call, this amendment request was expeditiously prepared to be responsive to the NRC staff."
The NRC staff has determined that the licensee has not abused the emergency provision of 10 CFR 50.91 in that.the licensee's application was timely, i.e.,
one day after notification by the NRC, and the licensee was not aware previously that the TS change was required. The staff finds that an emergency j
situation exists in that failure to act in a timely way would result in i
preventionofresumptionofoperation. Therefore, the amendment is being i
processed on an emergency basis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(5).
^
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION l
The Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92(c), this means that the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Commission has evaluated the proposed changes against the above standards as' required by 10 CFR 50.91(a) and has concluded that:
A.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
_3 (10 CFR 50.92(c)(1)) because the addition of the reference document assures that the methodologies used to determine core operating limits will be those previously approved by the NRC, and that all safety limits determined will comply with regulatory requirements.
The proposed amendment will not result in a change to any of the process variables that might initiate an accident or affect the radiological release for an accident, and the amendment does not involve any physical changes to facility structures, systems, or components.
B.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated (10 CFR 50.92(c)(2)) because the addition-of the reference allowing the use of methodologies previously approved by the NRC does not introduce any new operational modes or accident initiators. Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is not created by this change.
C.
The change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety (10 CFR 50.92(c)(3)) because it assures that each cycle reload core design will be evaluated using NRC-approved reload design methods. This will ensure that the values for cycte-specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits (e.g., fuel thermal and mechanical limits, core thermal / hydraulic limits, ECCS limits, shutdown margin, and transient and accident analyses limits) are met.
Based on the above considerations, the staff concludes that the amendment meets the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 for no significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, the staff has made a final determination that the proposed amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Hampshire and Massachusetts State officials were notified of the proposed issuance of the j
amendment. The officials were notified on June 23, 1997. The State officials had no comments.
~
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
l The amendment changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in,10 CFR 51.22(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 arandment.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the consider &tions discussed above, that:
(1) the amendment does not (a) significantly increase the probability j
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (b) increase the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated or (c) significantly reduce a safety margin and, therefore, the
)
i l amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance ~that the health and safety of the public will not be i
endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of I
the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to i
the he-lth and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
B. Buckley A. De Agazio Date: June 24, 1997 I
i
/
.