ML20214G250

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 108 to License DPR-71

ML20214G250
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	05/15/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20214G248	List: ML20214G246 ML20214G250
References
NUDOCS 8705260473
Download: ML20214G250 (3)

Text

._

t sa mooq

[ggf[k UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'E 4

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACT 0p REGULATION RELATED TO LICENSE AMENDMENT FOR CYCLE 6 RELOAD LICENSE NO. DPR-71 4

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

^

BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET N0. 50-325

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated October 21, 1986, the licensee proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, e

Unit 1 (BSEP-1). The purpose of this change is to incorporate proposed minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) values in Section 3/4.2.3 and Table 3.2.3.2-1.

The without bypass (proposed MCPR values are for the turbine trip / load rejectLRw/

combined into e single pressurization transient which is expected to bound n

the transient analyses for BSEP-1 Cycle 6.

The licensee provided additional information by letter dated March 11, 1987, to discuss the bases for the changes. This letter provided a discussion of the methodology used in the MCPR calculations and did not revise the amendment application.

2.0 EVALUATION The licensee performed an evaluation to establish bounding minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) operating limits for BSEP-1 utilizing GE 8x8R and/cr GE BP/P8x8R fuel designs. The previous reload analyses-for Units 1 and 2 were reviewed to establish the limiting transients for ODYN Options A i

and B and for additional fuel exposure levels. The uncorrected ACPR value was calculated by GETAB for the limiting transients for BP/P8x8R.

A ACPR adder was applied to this base ACPR value in order to conserva-tively bound the maximum observed Unit I uncorrected A CPR. This adder is comprised of three components:

(1) a 0.01 ACPR to account for the GETAB round-off process; (2) a 0.01 ACPR to account for mid-cycle exposure shape and scram reactivity difference from cycle to cycle; and (3) a 0.02 h CPR adder to provide a high assurance, without an adverse impact on operations, that the proposed MCPR limits bound any reasonable variation in Cycle 6 designs and potential abnormal modes of operation.

In addition, a 0.00 to 0.03 CPR is considered to account for different fuel types.

)

Therefore, a 0.04 or 0.03 & CPR adder is imposed to the Brunswick 1. Cycle F

6 beginning-of-cycle (B0C) to [end-of-cycle (EOC)-2000 MWD /ST] or [E0C-2000 MWD /ST] to EOC uncorrected ACPR to determine the operating limit MCPR.

The previous reload analyses indicate that the maximum observed cycle-to-cycle variation in operating limit MCPR for the limiting transients is only j

i 0.02 CPR. Therefore, the proposed adder is acceptable. The licensee l

submittal did not address the Cycle 6 reload design or the transient and j

accident analyses for Cycle 6 operation. Therefore our evaluation is i

w B705260473 870515 DR ADOCK 0500 5

l

N.

e.,

l restricted to the proposed technical specification change and does not imply I

staff review and approval of the Cycle 6 operation.

I We have reviewed the proposed operating limit MCPRs in Section 3/4.2.3 and Table 3.2.3.2-1:and find them acceptable since approved calculational methods l

are used. We conclude that the TS changes related to the operating limit l

(

MCPRs are acceptable based on the discussion provided above.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S-l I

This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 4

significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the l

10 CFR Part 20. The staff has detennined that the amendment involves no types, of any effluents that may be released offsite; and that there should be no significant increase in' individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. ~The Commission has previously issued a proposed i

y-finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.

l and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this 3

amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 951.22(b), no en-

{

vironmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared I

in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

l

4.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves l

no significant hazards consideration, which was published in the Federal Register on December 3, 1986 (52 FR 43678), and consulted with the state of North Carolina. No public coments were received, and the state of North Carolina did not have any comments.

We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) l there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public l

will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's re-gulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

T. Huang Dated: May 15, 1987 l

l f^

i 9

.j; I&f:

bf-

' 'j' o

.r j3's: (4

=

AMENDMENT NO.108 T0 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.SDPR-71 Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit 1

%dX 0,

(

~ DISTRIBUTION:'

T M W40m3055 %

NRC PDR Local PDR,f-PD21 r/f/ ^ 7 SVarga<

D.Glainas-T EAdensam g

PAnderson k

/

E."Sylvester(2)-

y 0GC i

p

.DHagen i

"EJordan >..

.,JPartlow;;. '

"I'Barnhart(4)

Wanda Jones l

'EButcher i

-ACKS(10) i GPA/PA ARM /LFMB l

Brunswick File-cc:

Plant Service List l

1%

h,> -

1, l

y

,b', t'-

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _