ML20216F995
| ML20216F995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 09/05/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216F992 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9709120159 | |
| Download: ML20216F995 (2) | |
Text
. - - - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
AR8ig l
k UNITED STATES
}
g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
e WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066-0001
\\..... p E
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REL ATED TO AMENDMENT NO. i87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-71 AND AMENDMENT NO. 218 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR 62 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT. UNITS l'AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50 325 AND 50-324
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 4.1996 (Ref.1) Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) proposed a change, for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Units 1 and 2 (BSEP 1 & 2), to the a)proach to be used for calculating the reactivity anomaly specified in Tec1nical Specification (TS) 3/4.1.2. " Reactivity Anomalies." This anomaly, if it exists, is currently indicated as being the difk rence between the predicted and measured control rod density in the reactor under the existing conditions, e.g. time in cycle, power level and control rod pattern.
This is then translated into a reactivity difference between the two values to compare with the specification limit of 1 percent delta K,,,.
If the limit is exceeded the cause must be explained or the reactor ) laced in hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
This comparison must be made during tie first startup following core alterations and at least once per full power month during power operation.
The proposed change to the TS would eliminate the translations of-reactivity into control rod densities.
It would instead use comparison of existing and predicted K change to TS 3/4.1.2 would be to the words " Rod De.,, directly.
The only nsity." which would be replaced, wherever they appeared in the TS. by " Core K,,,."
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The change in approach takes advantage of the new plant process computer and reactor calculation software program, which can gather reactor status data directly and calculate the reactivity status. This provides a more direct and accurate method for comparing " predicted" (calculated) K,, and the existing K,,,(which equals 1.00 for steady state operation). The current method requires prior calculations and approximations for the control rod density predictions. These can produce error in the comparison methodology. This will not occur in the revised approach, in which the calculations are done with correct information for the control rod configuration, as well as improved information for other significant parametars such as aower distribution and burnup. The basic concept of the TS has not aeen changed in this change.
There is still a comparison of a calculated and an observed reactor reactivity state. A better calculation has replaced one providing a relatively crude analysis of the control rod reactivity status.
This is an acceptable change. The Bases for TS 3/4.1.2 have been modified to provide a o b $00 N o 000!24 P
l l
i 2
clearer statement of the reason for the comparison addressed in the TS. The change is acceptable.
In summary, the NRC staff has reviewed the request by CP&L to revise '.he BSEP 1 & 2 TS and Bases 3/4.1.2. Based on the review, the staff concludes that these revisions are acceptable and will provide an improved approach for the determination of reactivity anomalies required by this TS,
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the State of North Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a surveillance requirement. The NRC 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 radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. and there has been no public coment on such finding (62 FR 11484). 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission 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.
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
W.R. Campbell, Carolina Power & Light Co., letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. December 4,1996.
Principal Contributor:
H. Richings Date: September 5,1997
/1
-. _ _ _ _