ML20077F289

Application for Amend to License DPR-62,revising Tech Specs Re Min Critical Power Ratio Values,Scram Time Testing Changes & Deletion of 7x7 Fuel Data

ML20077F289
Person / Time
Site:	Brunswick
Issue date:	07/29/1983
From:	Howe P CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20077F292	List: ML20077F289 ML20077F299
References
LAP-83-209, NUDOCS 8308010321
Download: ML20077F289 (5)

Text

l ,

SERIAL: LAP-83-209 Carolina Power & Light Company JUL 291983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. D. B. Vassallo, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-324 LICENSE NOS. DPR-62 REQUEST FOR REVISIONS TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS REVISED E'CPR VALUES

SUMMARY

In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulatit 9s, Title 10, Part 50.90 and Part 2.101, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) hereby requests revisions to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Brunswick Stea.n Electric Plant, Unit No. 2 (BSEP2). These revisions include correction of certain MCPR values, scram time testing changes, and deletion of 7 x 7 fuel data.

DISCUSSION Errors in the scram insertion times listed in TS 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4, and in the MCPR values listed in TS 3.2.3 have been corrected.

Further discussions and justifications of these changes, including the no significant hazards analyses, are provided in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, since 7 x 7 fuel is no longer used at BSEP2, all references to this type of fuel have been deleted from the TS to reduce confusion. A no significant hazards analysis for the deletion of all references to 7 x 7 fuel is provided as Attachment 3. ,

1 0 pI 8309010321 830729 PDR ADOCK 05000324 P \

PDR 411 Fayetteville Street

• P. O. Box 1551

• Raleigh, N. C. 27602

l O

I ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION l Changes to the TS are indicated by vertical lines in the right-hand 1 margin of the affected pages which are attached. In accordance with )

10 CFR 170.22, we have determined that these changes involve a single l technical issue and thus constitute one Class III license amendment fee.

Should you require additional information, please contact our staff.  ;

Yours very truly, G Lo.

P. W. Howe Vice President Brunswick Nuclear Project CEH/cfr (6978NLU)

Attachments P. W. Howe, having been first duly sworn, did depose and say that the information contained herein is true and correct to his own personal knowledge or based upon information and belief.

sr su > >

My commission expires: / MA i cc: Mr. D. C. Myers (NRC-BSEP)

Mr. J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-RII)

Hr. S. D. MacKay (NRC)

Mr. Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch

[ Division of Facility Services Department of Human Resources i

1 l

l 4

s Attachment 1 CONTROL ROD SCRAM INSERTION TIME The proposed change to the BSEP2 Technical Specifications (TS) revises the control rod scram insertion time requirements listed in Specifications 3.1.3.3 and 3.1.3.4. These time requirements were correct in the original Brunswick Custom Techtical Specifications where they were listed in terms of rod notch position. Since the rod notch position did not correspond precisely to percent of rod insertion, an offset of some of the scram time limits was erroneously introduced. The requested revision to the TS will correct these errors.

Of the four listed values of scram time, the proposed revisien will increase one time limit slightly while decreasing the other three. The net result is a set of points which are on a line defined by the original data points that were described in terms of percent control rod insertion versus time.

As the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 1 (BSEP1) TS were

, essentially written from the BSEP2 TS, the error also occurs there. The change to the BSEPl TS has been included in the BSEPI Cycle 4 reload TS revision submittal dated May 2,1983 (Serial No. LAP-83-99).

s NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS The proposed control rod scram insertion times do not increase the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated; or create the possibility cf a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety bect.use the proposed values are en a lire defined by the original data points

, in the Brunswick Custom Tecnnical Specifications. In addition, three of the four proposed control rod scram times are more conservative _ than the corresponding control rod scram times now listed in the BSEP2 TS.

L -- -

- -w - -

R

Attachment 2 MCPR DATA On February 3,1983, C.E. notified CP&L that a review of BSEP2 Cycle 5 transient analysis resulted in the discovery of an error in the ODYN transient computer code basedeck.

The error identified in the ODYN basedeck was an improper value for the separator steam carryunder fraction. During the transformation from the REDY to ODYN licensing basis, this separator steam carryunder fraction was not properly updated to reflect the final ODYN qualification and approved licensing basis value. This error affects the severity of the pressurization transients and, consequently, some of the Cycle 5 MCPR operating limits.

The limiting Cycle 5 pressurization transient (i.e., the load rejection without bypass transient for the non-recirculation pump trip (RPT) plant configuration) was reanalyzed to determine the effect of this error on the MCPR operating limits. The results of this analysis indicated that it would be necessary to revise upward by 0.02 those MCPR operating limits which are based on pressurization transients. This 0.02 increase for the load rejection without bypass transient for the non-RPT plant ecnfiguration conservatively bounde the effect of this error on all other presourization transients for both the non-RPT and the FPr plant configurations.

The 9runswick Steam Electric Plant notified the Region li office of the error and inserted the corrected MCFR values in the BSEP2 plant computer ce February 4, 1993. b3EP2 was at a Cycle 5 exposure of approximately 1200 MWD /ST at the time the corrected MCPR values were Inserted in the plant camputer. At this cycle exposure, the scram reactivity characteristics are substantially better than the scram reactivity characteristics assumed in the ODYN transient analysis. Therefore, we have concluded that there was adequate conservatism ia the MCPR operating limits, before the operating limits were revised, to assure that the GETAB safety limit was not violated.

A review by CP&L of the RWE event A CPR's reported in earlier correspondence (non-RPT plant configuration) resulted in the discovery that G.E. had failed to note that these values should also have been adjusted upward. By letter dated March 22, 1983, G.E. provided CP&L with the corrected values to reflect the higher MCPR Operating Limit value (based on the Load Rejection Without Bypass transient). As a result, the RWE MCPR values were adjusted by .03 for 'the 8 X 8R and the P8 X 8R fuels types. The MCPR value for the 8 X 8 fuel type was not affected. The plant has been operating with ODYN OPTION-A MCPR values, which are more lim! ting than the corrected RWE MCPR values; therefore, no changes to the plant computer MCPR values were required.

NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS The proposed MCPR values do not increase the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated; or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the proposed values are all more conservative than those in the existing BSEP TS.

r

1

)

i

-l Attachment 3 DELETION OF ALL REFERENCES TO 7 X 7 FUEL FROM BSEP2 TS NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS The deletion of all references to 7 X 7 fuel in the BSEP2 TS does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because 7 X 7 fuel is no longer used at BSEP2.

1 s

• ?>

b* .

• 6 I: ,

'i i a

]

- )f)

. ~%)

y

- 3 1-

,  ?,e Y.

_ ';s$fy'