ML17324B180: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:ACCESSIONNBR:FACIL:50-31550-31mAUTH.NAI]EALEXICH.N'RECIP.NANEDENTQNpH.R.REGULATORYIFQRNATIONDISTRIBUTIONSYel't(RIDS)8612300253DQC.DATE:86/12/22NOTARIZED:NODOCKET¹DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant.Unit1>Indiana505000315DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlantiUnit2>Indiana00500031bAUTHORAFFILIATIONIndiana8cNichiganElectricCo.RECIPIENTAFFILIATIONOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationtDirector(post851125
{{#Wiki_filter:ACCESSION NBR:FACIL:50-31550-31mAUTH.NAI]EALEXICH.N'RECIP.NANEDENTQNpH.R.REGULATORY IFQRNATION DISTRIBUTION SYel't(RIDS)8612300253 DQC.DATE:86/12/22NOTARIZED:
NODOCKET¹DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant.Unit1>Indiana505000315DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlantiUnit2>Indiana00500031bAUTHORAFFILIATION Indiana8cNichiganElectricCo.RECIPIENT AFFILIATION OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationt Director(post851125


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
ApplicationtoamendLicensesDPR-58ZcDPR-74>modifgingTechSpec5.3.1todeletereftomaxUweightperassembly0tocorrectminoreditorialchanges.Feepaid.DIBTRIBUTIONCODE:AOCIDCOPTERRECEIVED:LTR)ENCLQSIZE:l+(TITLE:QRSubmittal:GeneralDistributionNOTES:RECIPIENTIDCODE/NAl'lEPWR-AEBPWR-AFOBPWR-APD4PD01PWR-APSBINTERNAL:ADN/LFNBNRR/DHFT/TSCB04COPIESLTTRENCL1115511101111RECIPIENTIDCODE/NANEPWR-AEICSBPWR-APD4LAWIQQINQTONiDPWR-ARSB1EELD/HDS3NRR/GRASRQN3COPIESLTTRENCL22101111101011EXTERNAL:E('@('RUSKE,SNRCPDR02111LPDRNSIC030522148'R(P~gg-g)lyg<5aATOTALNUl'tBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:LTTR.2+ENCL  
Application toamendLicensesDPR-58ZcDPR-74>modifgingTechSpec5.3.1todeletereftomaxUweightperassembly0tocorrectminoreditorial changes.Feepaid.DIBTRIBUTION CODE:AOCIDCOPTERRECEIVED:
LTR)ENCLQSIZE:l+(TITLE:QRSubmittal:
GeneralDistribution NOTES:RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAl'lE PWR-AEBPWR-AFOBPWR-APD4PD01PWR-APSBINTERNAL:
ADN/LFNBNRR/DHFT/TSCB 04COPIESLTTRENCL1115511101111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NANE PWR-AEICSBPWR-APD4LAWIQQINQTONi DPWR-ARSB1EELD/HDS3NRR/GRASRQN3COPIESLTTRENCL22101111101011EXTERNAL:
E('@('RUSKE, SNRCPDR02111LPDRNSIC030522148'R(P~gg-g)lyg<5aATOTALNUl'tBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:
LTTR.2+ENCL  
*thI4I~H-t'KIh'I'l>>)~IHI>>,Hlh4If>>HKI<<1,HhtI'Hdghgfh/1lh'41fl"WHHHJll~,I44IIWIh',
*thI4I~H-t'KIh'I'l>>)~IHI>>,Hlh4If>>HKI<<1,HhtI'Hdghgfh/1lh'41fl"WHHHJll~,I44IIWIh',
INDIANA8MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYP,O.BOX16631COLUMBUS,OHIO43216December22,1986AEP:NRC:1016DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74FUELASSEMBLYURANIUMMASSTECHNICALSPECIFICATIONCHANGEMr.HaroldR.Denton,DirectorOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionWashington,D.C.20555
INDIANA8MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYP,O.BOX16631COLUMBUS, OHIO43216December22,1986AEP:NRC:1016 DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74FUELASSEMBLYURANIUMMASSTECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGEMr.HaroldR.Denton,DirectorOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555


==DearMr.Denton:==
==DearMr.Denton:==
ThisletteranditsattachmentsconstituteanapplicationforamendmenttotheTechnicalSpecifications(T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2.Specifically,weproposetomodifyT/S5.3.1(DesignFeatures-ReactorCoreFuelAssemblies)todeletereferencetoamaximumuraniumweightperassemblyandtocorrectminoreditorialchanges'hereasonsfortheproposedchangesandouranalysesconcerningsignificanthazardsconsiderationsarecontainedinAttachment1tothisletter.TheproposedrevisedT/SpagesarecontainedinAttachment2.Webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)asignificantchangeinthetypesofeffluentsorasignificantincreaseintheamountsofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificantincreaseinindividualorcumulativeoccupationalradiationexposure.TheseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee(PNSRC)andwillbereviewedbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommittee(NSDRC)attheirnextregularlyscheduledmeeting.Incompliancewiththerequirementsof10CFR50.91(b)(1),copiesofthisletteranditsattachmentshavebeentransmittedtoMr.R.C.CallenoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommissionandMr.G.BruchmannoftheMichiganDepartmentofPublicHealth.Pursuantto10CFR170.12(c),wehaveenclosedanapplicationfeeof$150.00fortheproposedamendments.86i2300253861222~PDR*DOCK05000315('PDR~I, L~~~CI Mr.HaroldR.Denton-2-AEP:NRC:1016ThisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowingCorporateprocedureswhichincorporateareasonablesetofcontrolstoinsureitsaccuracyandcompletenesspriortosignaturebytheundersigned.Verytrulyyours,MPA/cmAttachmentsM..AleichVicePresidentIply'll>>cc:JohnE.DolanW.G.Smith,Jr.-BridgmanR.C.CallenG.BruchmannG.CharnoffNRCResidentInspector-Bridgman Attachment1toAEP:NRC:1016Reasonsand10CFR50.92AnalysesforChangestotheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2TechnicalSpecifications Attachment1toAEP:RC:1016Page1ThislicenseamendmentrequestproposestomodifyT/S5.3.1(DesignFeatures-ReactorCoreFuelAssemblies)forUnits1and2todeletereferencetoamaximumuraniumweightperassembly.BackroundByletterdatedSeptember4,1986(Attachment3),WestinghouseElectricCorporation(Westinghouse)officiallynotifiedusofadiscrepancyinvolvingthemaximumuraniumweightperassemblyspecifiedinT/S5.3.1'orUnit1.Specifically,Westinghouseinformedusthatrecentimprovementstotheirfueldesign(includingchamferedpelletswithareduceddishandanominaldensityincrease)haveincreasedfuelweightslightly.Theweightincreaseshavecausedthemaximumfuelrodweighttoexceedthemaximumvalueof2236gramsspecifiedinUnit1DesignFeaturesT/S5.3.1.WestinghousealsoprovideduswithproposedwordingandjustificationforaT/Schange,aswell,asajustificationforcontinuedoperation.WestinghousehadnotifiedusoftheconditioninformallyinAprilofthisyear.Atthattime,theissuewasdiscussedwithyourstaff,whoinformedustheissuecouldberesolvedbysubmittingrevisedT/Ss.TheapplicabilityofthisissuetoUnit2oftheD.C.CookPlantwasdiscussedwithExxonNuclearCompany(ENC),ourUnit2fuelsupplier.AlthoughtheENCfuelinUnit2doesnotexceedthemaximumuraniumweightperrodspecifiedinUnit2T/S5.3.1,ENCinformedusbyletterdatedOctober15,1986(Attachment4)thatthey"concurwiththegenericWestinghouseevaluationoftheproposedremovalofthemaximumrodweightfromT/S5.3.1."EvaluationTheproposedchangeofTechnicalSpecificationDesignFeaturesSection5.3.1isgiveninAttachment2.ThisistheonlyreferencetofuelroduraniumweightintheTechnicalSpecifications.AsdescribedbyWestinghouseinAttachment3,Althoughanumberofsafetyanalysesareaffectedindirectlybyfuelweight,theanalysesaremoresensitivetofuelconfiguration,length,enrichmentandphysicaldesignwhicharealsospecifiedintheplantTechnicalSpecifications.TheTechnicalSpecificationslimitpowerandpowerdistribution,thuscontrollingthefissionrateandtherateofdecayheatproduction.Fuelrodweightdoesnothaveanydirectbearingonthepowerlimits,poweroperatinglevel,ordecayheatrate.Thecompositionofthefueliscloselymonitoredtoassureacceptablefuelperformance.ThefuelweightchangesthatcouldbemadewithoutaTechnicalSpecificationlimitarenotofsufficientmagnitudetocauseasignificantdifferenceinfuelperformanceasanalyzedbyWestinghouse.Therearenoexpectedobservablechangesinnormaloperationduetothenotedfuelrodweightchanges,andtheremainingfuelparameterslistedintheTechnicalSpecificationsareconsideredintheReloadSafetyEvaluation.
Thisletteranditsattachments constitute anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2.Specifically, weproposetomodifyT/S5.3.1(DesignFeatures-ReactorCoreFuelAssemblies) todeletereference toamaximumuraniumweightperassemblyandtocorrectminoreditorial changes'he reasonsfortheproposedchangesandouranalysesconcerning significant hazardsconsiderations arecontained inAttachment 1tothisletter.TheproposedrevisedT/Spagesarecontained inAttachment 2.Webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)asignificant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountsofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificant increaseinindividual orcumulative occupational radiation exposure.
TheseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee (PNSRC)andwillbereviewedbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommittee (NSDRC)attheirnextregularly scheduled meeting.Incompliance withtherequirements of10CFR50.91(b)(1),
copiesofthisletteranditsattachments havebeentransmitted toMr.R.C.CallenoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommission andMr.G.Bruchmann oftheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.Pursuantto10CFR170.12(c),
wehaveenclosedanapplication feeof$150.00fortheproposedamendments.
86i2300253 861222~PDR*DOCK05000315('
PDR~I, L~~~CI Mr.HaroldR.Denton-2-AEP:NRC:1016 Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures whichincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoinsureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.
Verytrulyyours,MPA/cmAttachments M..AleichVicePresident Iply'll>>cc:JohnE.DolanW.G.Smith,Jr.-BridgmanR.C.CallenG.Bruchmann G.CharnoffNRCResidentInspector
-Bridgman Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1016 Reasonsand10CFR50.92AnalysesforChangestotheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2Technical Specifications Attachment 1toAEP:RC:1016Page1Thislicenseamendment requestproposestomodifyT/S5.3.1(DesignFeatures-ReactorCoreFuelAssemblies) forUnits1and2todeletereference toamaximumuraniumweightperassembly.
BackroundByletterdatedSeptember 4,1986(Attachment 3),Westinghouse ElectricCorporation (Westinghouse) officially notifiedusofadiscrepancy involving themaximumuraniumweightperassemblyspecified inT/S5.3.1'orUnit1.Specifically, Westinghouse informedusthatrecentimprovements totheirfueldesign(including chamfered pelletswithareduceddishandanominaldensityincrease) haveincreased fuelweightslightly.
Theweightincreases havecausedthemaximumfuelrodweighttoexceedthemaximumvalueof2236gramsspecified inUnit1DesignFeaturesT/S5.3.1.Westinghouse alsoprovideduswithproposedwordingandjustification foraT/Schange,aswell,asajustification forcontinued operation.
Westinghouse hadnotifiedusofthecondition informally inAprilofthisyear.Atthattime,theissuewasdiscussed withyourstaff,whoinformedustheissuecouldberesolvedbysubmitting revisedT/Ss.Theapplicability ofthisissuetoUnit2oftheD.C.CookPlantwasdiscussed withExxonNuclearCompany(ENC),ourUnit2fuelsupplier.
AlthoughtheENCfuelinUnit2doesnotexceedthemaximumuraniumweightperrodspecified inUnit2T/S5.3.1,ENCinformedusbyletterdatedOctober15,1986(Attachment 4)thatthey"concurwiththegenericWestinghouse evaluation oftheproposedremovalofthemaximumrodweightfromT/S5.3.1."Evaluation TheproposedchangeofTechnical Specification DesignFeaturesSection5.3.1isgiveninAttachment 2.Thisistheonlyreference tofuelroduraniumweightintheTechnical Specifications.
Asdescribed byWestinghouse inAttachment 3,Althoughanumberofsafetyanalysesareaffectedindirectly byfuelweight,theanalysesaremoresensitive tofuelconfiguration, length,enrichment andphysicaldesignwhicharealsospecified intheplantTechnical Specifications.
TheTechnical Specifications limitpowerandpowerdistribution, thuscontrolling thefissionrateandtherateofdecayheatproduction.
Fuelrodweightdoesnothaveanydirectbearingonthepowerlimits,poweroperating level,ordecayheatrate.Thecomposition ofthefueliscloselymonitored toassureacceptable fuelperformance.
ThefuelweightchangesthatcouldbemadewithoutaTechnical Specification limitarenotofsufficient magnitude tocauseasignificant difference infuelperformance asanalyzedbyWestinghouse.
Therearenoexpectedobservable changesinnormaloperation duetothenotedfuelrodweightchanges,andtheremaining fuelparameters listedintheTechnical Specifications areconsidered intheReloadSafetyEvaluation.
1f~~
1f~~
Attachment1toAEP.RC:1016Page2OtherDesignBasisEventswereexaminedtoassesstheeffectsofpossiblechangesinfuelrodweight.Fuelrodweightwillonlychangeasaresultofaspecificchangeinthephysicaldesign,whichisaddressedintheReloadSafetyEvaluation,orwithinthemanufacturingtolerances,inwhichcasethechangesinfuelrodweightarerelativelyinsignificant.Changesinnucleardesignresultingfromfuelrodweightchangesarecontrolledasdiscussedabove.Forthesechanges,theeffectonnewandspentfuelcriticalityandfuel-handlinganalysesremainboundedbytheexistinganalysesandTechnicalSpecificationDesignFeaturelimits.Fuel-handlingequipmentandproceduresarenotaffectedbytheseweightchanges.Seismic/LOCAanalysescontainsufficientconservatismtoboundtheseweightchanges.Otheraccidentanalysesarenotaffectedbyrodweightasadirectparameter,andtheexistinganalysesremainbounding.Asstatedearlier,ENChas(inAttachment4)concurredwiththeWestinghouseevaluationwithregardtoD.C.CookUnit2.BasisforNoSinificantHazardsDeterminationPer10CFR50.92,aproposedamendmentwillinvolveanosignificanthazardsconsiderationiftheproposedamendmentdoesnot:(1)involveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,(2)createthepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviouslyanalyzedorevaluated,or(3)involveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.OurevaluationoftheabovecriteriaisbasedoninformationsuppliedtousbyWestinghouse(seeAttachment3).Criterion1Thedeletionofthefuelroduraniumweightlimitdoesnotsignificantlyincreasetheprobabilityorconsequencesofpreviouslyevaluatedaccidents.ThevariationinfuelrodweightthatcanoccurevenwithoutaTechnicalSpecificationlimitissmallbasedonotherfueldesignconstraints,e.g.,roddiameter,gapsize,UO-2densityandactivefuellength,allofwhichprovidesomelimitonthevariationinrodweight.Thecurrentsafetyanalysesarenotbaseddirectlyonfuelrodweight,abutratherondesignparameterssuchaspower-andfueldimensions.Theseparametersareeither(1)notaffectedatallbyfuelrodweight,or(2)areonlyslightlyaffected.However,areviewofdesignparameterswhichmaybeaffectedindicatesthatachangeinfuelweightdoesnotcauseotherdesignparameterstoexceedthevaluesassumedinthevarioussafetyanalyses,ortocauseacceptancecriteriatobeexceeded.Theeffectsarenotsignificantwithrespecttomeasurednuclearparameters(power,powerdistribution,nuclearcoefficients),i.e.,theyremainwithintheirT/Slimits.Thus,itisconcludedthattheT/Smodificationdoesnotinvolveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofapreviouslyevaluatedaccident.
Attachment 1toAEP.RC:1016Page2OtherDesignBasisEventswereexaminedtoassesstheeffectsofpossiblechangesinfuelrodweight.Fuelrodweightwillonlychangeasaresultofaspecificchangeinthephysicaldesign,whichisaddressed intheReloadSafetyEvaluation, orwithinthemanufacturing tolerances, inwhichcasethechangesinfuelrodweightarerelatively insignificant.
P Attachment1toAEP.C:1016Page3Criterion2Thecreationofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanypreviouslyevaluatedaccidentisnotconsideredapossibility.Allofthefuelcontainedinthefuelrodissimilartoanddesignedtofunctionsimilartopreviousfuel.Thus,theexistingnewandspentfuelstoragecriticalityanalysesboundthechangesobserved.Thischangeisconsideredasadministrativeinnatureanddoesnotcreatethepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccident.Criterion3Themarginofsafetyismaintainedbyadherencetootherfuel-relatedTechnicalSpecificationlimitsandtheFSARdesignbases.ThedeletionoffuelrodweightlimitsintheTechnicalSpecificationsDesignFeaturesSection5.3.1doesnotdirectlyaffectanysafetysystemorthesafetylimits,andthereforewillnotreducethemarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheNRChasprovidedguidanceconcerningthedeterminationofsignificanthazardsbyprovidingcertainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendmentsconsiderednotlikelytoinvolvesignificanthazardsconsideration.Thesixthoftheseexamplesreferstochangeswhichmayresultinsomeincreasetotheprobabilityofoccurrenceorconsequencesofapreviouslyanalyzedaccidentormayreduceinsomewayasafetymargin,buttheresultsofwhicharewithinacceptablecriteria.DeletingtheT/Slimitformaximumfuelroduraniumweightmaybeperceivedasreducingmarginofsafetyorincreasingtheprobabilityorconsequencesofpreviouslyanalyzedaccidents.However,evaluationsoftheproposedchangeperformedbyWestinghouseandENChavedemonstratedthatapplicablecriteriawithregardstonuclearsafetywouldcontinuetobesatisfied.AdditionalChanesInadditiontothechangesdescribedabove,wealsomadeseveralminoreditorialchangestocorrecttypographicalerrorsintheT/Stext.Specifically,wecorrectedthespellingof"Zircaloy-4"inUnit1T/S5.3.1,andthespellingof"control"inUnit2T/S5.3.2.Thesechangesarepurelyadministrativeinnatureandthereforedonotreduceamarginofsafety,donotincreasetheprobabilityorconsequencesofapreviouslyanalyzedaccident,anddonotintroducethepossibilityofanewaccident.Therefore,webelievethatthesechangesdonotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsiderationasdefinedby10CFR50.92.
Changesinnucleardesignresulting fromfuelrodweightchangesarecontrolled asdiscussed above.Forthesechanges,theeffectonnewandspentfuelcriticality andfuel-handling analysesremainboundedbytheexistinganalysesandTechnical Specification DesignFeaturelimits.Fuel-handling equipment andprocedures arenotaffectedbytheseweightchanges.Seismic/LOCA analysescontainsufficient conservatism toboundtheseweightchanges.Otheraccidentanalysesarenotaffectedbyrodweightasadirectparameter, andtheexistinganalysesremainbounding.
Attachment2toAEP:NRC:1016ProposedRevisedTechnicalSpecificationPages}}
Asstatedearlier,ENChas(inAttachment 4)concurred withtheWestinghouse evaluation withregardtoD.C.CookUnit2.BasisforNoSinificantHazardsDetermination Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willinvolveanosignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Ourevaluation oftheabovecriteriaisbasedoninformation suppliedtousbyWestinghouse (seeAttachment 3).Criterion 1Thedeletionofthefuelroduraniumweightlimitdoesnotsignificantly increasetheprobability orconsequences ofpreviously evaluated accidents.
Thevariation infuelrodweightthatcanoccurevenwithoutaTechnical Specification limitissmallbasedonotherfueldesignconstraints, e.g.,roddiameter, gapsize,UO-2densityandactivefuellength,allofwhichprovidesomelimitonthevariation inrodweight.Thecurrentsafetyanalysesarenotbaseddirectlyonfuelrodweight,abutratherondesignparameters suchaspower-andfueldimensions.
Theseparameters areeither(1)notaffectedatallbyfuelrodweight,or(2)areonlyslightlyaffected.
However,areviewofdesignparameters whichmaybeaffectedindicates thatachangeinfuelweightdoesnotcauseotherdesignparameters toexceedthevaluesassumedinthevarioussafetyanalyses, ortocauseacceptance criteriatobeexceeded.
Theeffectsarenotsignificant withrespecttomeasurednuclearparameters (power,powerdistribution, nuclearcoefficients),
i.e.,theyremainwithintheirT/Slimits.Thus,itisconcluded thattheT/Smodification doesnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously evaluated accident.
P Attachment 1toAEP.C:1016Page3Criterion 2Thecreationofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanypreviously evaluated accidentisnotconsidered apossibility.
Allofthefuelcontained inthefuelrodissimilartoanddesignedtofunctionsimilartopreviousfuel.Thus,theexistingnewandspentfuelstoragecriticality analysesboundthechangesobserved.
Thischangeisconsidered asadministrative innatureanddoesnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccident.
Criterion 3Themarginofsafetyismaintained byadherence tootherfuel-related Technical Specification limitsandtheFSARdesignbases.ThedeletionoffuelrodweightlimitsintheTechnical Specifications DesignFeaturesSection5.3.1doesnotdirectlyaffectanysafetysystemorthesafetylimits,andtherefore willnotreducethemarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheNRChasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermination ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolvesignificant hazardsconsideration.
Thesixthoftheseexamplesreferstochangeswhichmayresultinsomeincreasetotheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccidentormayreduceinsomewayasafetymargin,buttheresultsofwhicharewithinacceptable criteria.
DeletingtheT/Slimitformaximumfuelroduraniumweightmaybeperceived asreducingmarginofsafetyorincreasing theprobability orconsequences ofpreviously analyzedaccidents.
However,evaluations oftheproposedchangeperformed byWestinghouse andENChavedemonstrated thatapplicable criteriawithregardstonuclearsafetywouldcontinuetobesatisfied.
Additional ChanesInadditiontothechangesdescribed above,wealsomadeseveralminoreditorial changestocorrecttypographical errorsintheT/Stext.Specifically, wecorrected thespellingof"Zircaloy-4" inUnit1T/S5.3.1,andthespellingof"control" inUnit2T/S5.3.2.Thesechangesarepurelyadministrative innatureandtherefore donotreduceamarginofsafety,donotincreasetheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, anddonotintroduce thepossibility ofanewaccident.
Therefore, webelievethatthesechangesdonotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedby10CFR50.92.
Attachment 2toAEP:NRC:1016 ProposedRevisedTechnical Specification Pages}}

Revision as of 09:34, 29 June 2018

Application to Amend Licenses DPR-58 & DPR-74,modifying Tech Spec 5.3.1 to Delete Ref to Max U Weight Per Assembly & to Correct Minor Editorial Changes.Fee Paid
ML17324B180
Person / Time
Site: Cook  American Electric Power icon.png
Issue date: 12/22/1986
From: ALEXICH M P
INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER CO. (FORMERLY INDIANA & MICHIG
To: DENTON H R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17324B181 List:
References
AEP:NRC:1016, NUDOCS 8612300253
Download: ML17324B180 (12)
v • d • e


Text

ACCESSION NBR:FACIL:50-31550-31mAUTH.NAI]EALEXICH.N'RECIP.NANEDENTQNpH.R.REGULATORY IFQRNATION DISTRIBUTION SYel't(RIDS)8612300253 DQC.DATE:86/12/22NOTARIZED:

NODOCKET¹DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlant.Unit1>Indiana505000315DonaldC.CookNuclearPowerPlantiUnit2>Indiana00500031bAUTHORAFFILIATION Indiana8cNichiganElectricCo.RECIPIENT AFFILIATION OfficeofNuclearReactorRegulationt Director(post851125

SUBJECT:

Application toamendLicensesDPR-58ZcDPR-74>modifgingTechSpec5.3.1todeletereftomaxUweightperassembly0tocorrectminoreditorial changes.Feepaid.DIBTRIBUTION CODE:AOCIDCOPTERRECEIVED:

LTR)ENCLQSIZE:l+(TITLE:QRSubmittal:

GeneralDistribution NOTES:RECIPIENT IDCODE/NAl'lE PWR-AEBPWR-AFOBPWR-APD4PD01PWR-APSBINTERNAL:

ADN/LFNBNRR/DHFT/TSCB 04COPIESLTTRENCL1115511101111RECIPIENT IDCODE/NANE PWR-AEICSBPWR-APD4LAWIQQINQTONi DPWR-ARSB1EELD/HDS3NRR/GRASRQN3COPIESLTTRENCL22101111101011EXTERNAL:

E('@('RUSKE, SNRCPDR02111LPDRNSIC030522148'R(P~gg-g)lyg<5aATOTALNUl'tBEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:

LTTR.2+ENCL

  • thI4I~H-t'KIh'I'l>>)~IHI>>,Hlh4If>>HKI<<1,HhtI'Hdghgfh/1lh'41fl"WHHHJll~,I44IIWIh',

INDIANA8MICHIGANELECTRICCOMPANYP,O.BOX16631COLUMBUS, OHIO43216December22,1986AEP:NRC:1016 DonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2DocketNos.50-315and50-316LicenseNos.DPR-58andDPR-74FUELASSEMBLYURANIUMMASSTECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGEMr.HaroldR.Denton,DirectorOfficeofNuclearReactorRegulation U.S.NuclearRegulatory Commission Washington, D.C.20555

DearMr.Denton:

Thisletteranditsattachments constitute anapplication foramendment totheTechnical Specifications (T/Ss)fortheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2.Specifically, weproposetomodifyT/S5.3.1(DesignFeatures-ReactorCoreFuelAssemblies) todeletereference toamaximumuraniumweightperassemblyandtocorrectminoreditorial changes'he reasonsfortheproposedchangesandouranalysesconcerning significant hazardsconsiderations arecontained inAttachment 1tothisletter.TheproposedrevisedT/Spagesarecontained inAttachment 2.Webelievethattheproposedchangeswillnotresultin(1)asignificant changeinthetypesofeffluents orasignificant increaseintheamountsofanyeffluentthatmaybereleasedoffsite,or(2)asignificant increaseinindividual orcumulative occupational radiation exposure.

TheseproposedchangeshavebeenreviewedbythePlantNuclearSafetyReviewCommittee (PNSRC)andwillbereviewedbytheNuclearSafetyandDesignReviewCommittee (NSDRC)attheirnextregularly scheduled meeting.Incompliance withtherequirements of10CFR50.91(b)(1),

copiesofthisletteranditsattachments havebeentransmitted toMr.R.C.CallenoftheMichiganPublicServiceCommission andMr.G.Bruchmann oftheMichiganDepartment ofPublicHealth.Pursuantto10CFR170.12(c),

wehaveenclosedanapplication feeof$150.00fortheproposedamendments.

86i2300253 861222~PDR*DOCK05000315('

PDR~I, L~~~CI Mr.HaroldR.Denton-2-AEP:NRC:1016 Thisdocumenthasbeenpreparedfollowing Corporate procedures whichincorporate areasonable setofcontrolstoinsureitsaccuracyandcompleteness priortosignature bytheundersigned.

Verytrulyyours,MPA/cmAttachments M..AleichVicePresident Iply'll>>cc:JohnE.DolanW.G.Smith,Jr.-BridgmanR.C.CallenG.Bruchmann G.CharnoffNRCResidentInspector

-Bridgman Attachment 1toAEP:NRC:1016 Reasonsand10CFR50.92AnalysesforChangestotheDonaldC.CookNuclearPlantUnitNos.1and2Technical Specifications Attachment 1toAEP:RC:1016Page1Thislicenseamendment requestproposestomodifyT/S5.3.1(DesignFeatures-ReactorCoreFuelAssemblies) forUnits1and2todeletereference toamaximumuraniumweightperassembly.

BackroundByletterdatedSeptember 4,1986(Attachment 3),Westinghouse ElectricCorporation (Westinghouse) officially notifiedusofadiscrepancy involving themaximumuraniumweightperassemblyspecified inT/S5.3.1'orUnit1.Specifically, Westinghouse informedusthatrecentimprovements totheirfueldesign(including chamfered pelletswithareduceddishandanominaldensityincrease) haveincreased fuelweightslightly.

Theweightincreases havecausedthemaximumfuelrodweighttoexceedthemaximumvalueof2236gramsspecified inUnit1DesignFeaturesT/S5.3.1.Westinghouse alsoprovideduswithproposedwordingandjustification foraT/Schange,aswell,asajustification forcontinued operation.

Westinghouse hadnotifiedusofthecondition informally inAprilofthisyear.Atthattime,theissuewasdiscussed withyourstaff,whoinformedustheissuecouldberesolvedbysubmitting revisedT/Ss.Theapplicability ofthisissuetoUnit2oftheD.C.CookPlantwasdiscussed withExxonNuclearCompany(ENC),ourUnit2fuelsupplier.

AlthoughtheENCfuelinUnit2doesnotexceedthemaximumuraniumweightperrodspecified inUnit2T/S5.3.1,ENCinformedusbyletterdatedOctober15,1986(Attachment 4)thatthey"concurwiththegenericWestinghouse evaluation oftheproposedremovalofthemaximumrodweightfromT/S5.3.1."Evaluation TheproposedchangeofTechnical Specification DesignFeaturesSection5.3.1isgiveninAttachment 2.Thisistheonlyreference tofuelroduraniumweightintheTechnical Specifications.

Asdescribed byWestinghouse inAttachment 3,Althoughanumberofsafetyanalysesareaffectedindirectly byfuelweight,theanalysesaremoresensitive tofuelconfiguration, length,enrichment andphysicaldesignwhicharealsospecified intheplantTechnical Specifications.

TheTechnical Specifications limitpowerandpowerdistribution, thuscontrolling thefissionrateandtherateofdecayheatproduction.

Fuelrodweightdoesnothaveanydirectbearingonthepowerlimits,poweroperating level,ordecayheatrate.Thecomposition ofthefueliscloselymonitored toassureacceptable fuelperformance.

ThefuelweightchangesthatcouldbemadewithoutaTechnical Specification limitarenotofsufficient magnitude tocauseasignificant difference infuelperformance asanalyzedbyWestinghouse.

Therearenoexpectedobservable changesinnormaloperation duetothenotedfuelrodweightchanges,andtheremaining fuelparameters listedintheTechnical Specifications areconsidered intheReloadSafetyEvaluation.

1f~~

Attachment 1toAEP.RC:1016Page2OtherDesignBasisEventswereexaminedtoassesstheeffectsofpossiblechangesinfuelrodweight.Fuelrodweightwillonlychangeasaresultofaspecificchangeinthephysicaldesign,whichisaddressed intheReloadSafetyEvaluation, orwithinthemanufacturing tolerances, inwhichcasethechangesinfuelrodweightarerelatively insignificant.

Changesinnucleardesignresulting fromfuelrodweightchangesarecontrolled asdiscussed above.Forthesechanges,theeffectonnewandspentfuelcriticality andfuel-handling analysesremainboundedbytheexistinganalysesandTechnical Specification DesignFeaturelimits.Fuel-handling equipment andprocedures arenotaffectedbytheseweightchanges.Seismic/LOCA analysescontainsufficient conservatism toboundtheseweightchanges.Otheraccidentanalysesarenotaffectedbyrodweightasadirectparameter, andtheexistinganalysesremainbounding.

Asstatedearlier,ENChas(inAttachment 4)concurred withtheWestinghouse evaluation withregardtoD.C.CookUnit2.BasisforNoSinificantHazardsDetermination Per10CFR50.92,aproposedamendment willinvolveanosignificant hazardsconsideration iftheproposedamendment doesnot:(1)involveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofanaccidentpreviously evaluated, (2)createthepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviously analyzedorevaluated, or(3)involveasignificant reduction inamarginofsafety.Ourevaluation oftheabovecriteriaisbasedoninformation suppliedtousbyWestinghouse (seeAttachment 3).Criterion 1Thedeletionofthefuelroduraniumweightlimitdoesnotsignificantly increasetheprobability orconsequences ofpreviously evaluated accidents.

Thevariation infuelrodweightthatcanoccurevenwithoutaTechnical Specification limitissmallbasedonotherfueldesignconstraints, e.g.,roddiameter, gapsize,UO-2densityandactivefuellength,allofwhichprovidesomelimitonthevariation inrodweight.Thecurrentsafetyanalysesarenotbaseddirectlyonfuelrodweight,abutratherondesignparameters suchaspower-andfueldimensions.

Theseparameters areeither(1)notaffectedatallbyfuelrodweight,or(2)areonlyslightlyaffected.

However,areviewofdesignparameters whichmaybeaffectedindicates thatachangeinfuelweightdoesnotcauseotherdesignparameters toexceedthevaluesassumedinthevarioussafetyanalyses, ortocauseacceptance criteriatobeexceeded.

Theeffectsarenotsignificant withrespecttomeasurednuclearparameters (power,powerdistribution, nuclearcoefficients),

i.e.,theyremainwithintheirT/Slimits.Thus,itisconcluded thattheT/Smodification doesnotinvolveasignificant increaseintheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously evaluated accident.

P Attachment 1toAEP.C:1016Page3Criterion 2Thecreationofanewordifferent kindofaccidentfromanypreviously evaluated accidentisnotconsidered apossibility.

Allofthefuelcontained inthefuelrodissimilartoanddesignedtofunctionsimilartopreviousfuel.Thus,theexistingnewandspentfuelstoragecriticality analysesboundthechangesobserved.

Thischangeisconsidered asadministrative innatureanddoesnotcreatethepossibility ofanewordifferent kindofaccident.

Criterion 3Themarginofsafetyismaintained byadherence tootherfuel-related Technical Specification limitsandtheFSARdesignbases.ThedeletionoffuelrodweightlimitsintheTechnical Specifications DesignFeaturesSection5.3.1doesnotdirectlyaffectanysafetysystemorthesafetylimits,andtherefore willnotreducethemarginofsafety.Lastly,wenotethattheNRChasprovidedguidanceconcerning thedetermination ofsignificant hazardsbyproviding certainexamples(48FR14870)ofamendments considered notlikelytoinvolvesignificant hazardsconsideration.

Thesixthoftheseexamplesreferstochangeswhichmayresultinsomeincreasetotheprobability ofoccurrence orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccidentormayreduceinsomewayasafetymargin,buttheresultsofwhicharewithinacceptable criteria.

DeletingtheT/Slimitformaximumfuelroduraniumweightmaybeperceived asreducingmarginofsafetyorincreasing theprobability orconsequences ofpreviously analyzedaccidents.

However,evaluations oftheproposedchangeperformed byWestinghouse andENChavedemonstrated thatapplicable criteriawithregardstonuclearsafetywouldcontinuetobesatisfied.

Additional ChanesInadditiontothechangesdescribed above,wealsomadeseveralminoreditorial changestocorrecttypographical errorsintheT/Stext.Specifically, wecorrected thespellingof"Zircaloy-4" inUnit1T/S5.3.1,andthespellingof"control" inUnit2T/S5.3.2.Thesechangesarepurelyadministrative innatureandtherefore donotreduceamarginofsafety,donotincreasetheprobability orconsequences ofapreviously analyzedaccident, anddonotintroduce thepossibility ofanewaccident.

Therefore, webelievethatthesechangesdonotinvolveasignificant hazardsconsideration asdefinedby10CFR50.92.

Attachment 2toAEP:NRC:1016 ProposedRevisedTechnical Specification Pages

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML17324B180&oldid=738594"