ML17353A854
| ML17353A854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17353A852 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9608150192 | |
| Download: ML17353A854 (4) | |
Text
~R RK00 4.
Po A.o0 IVl Y/
++*++
l t
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&4001 S
FETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.i90 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-31 AND AMENDMENT NO. i84 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-41 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY TURKEY POINT UNIT NOS.
3 AND 4 DOCKET NOS.
50-250 AND 50-251
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 26, 1995, Florida Power and Light (FPL or the licensee) proposed a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
Additional information was provided by letters dated March 13,
- 1996, Hay 3,
- 1996, and Hay 9, 1996.
The information provided by these letters did not change the original no significant hazards determination.
The proposed changes would change TS 6.9. 1.7, Core Operating Limits Report, by inserting references to two analytical methods to determine the K(z) Curve.
This results from a reanalysis of the small break LOCA for the Turkey Point Units using the NOTRUMP code including the COSI safety injection (SI) condensation model.
The small-break LOCA reanalysis was performed to support the future power up-rate to 2,300 HWth in both Turkey Point Units whi,ch is being evaluated separately by the staff.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION The initial and boundary conditions for the small-break'LOCA reanalysis were chosen conservatively.
For the up-rated power level of 2300 HWth the total peaking factor is 2.5.
The hot-rod power shape accounts for axial offset plus 20X concentrating power distribution in the upper core region.
The power shape is a flat k(z).
The high head safety injection flow rate assumes only one operating pump at a degraded level of performance.
The reactor rated power assumes a
2X calorimetric error and a high T,.
For single failure it is assumed that an emergency train and the associaFed ECCS components are not operable.
Loss of offsite power was also assumed coincident with reactor trip.
For small-break LOCA the Westinghouse code NOTRUMP is used.
NOTRUMP incorporates the COSI'model, which accounts for steam condensation due to high head injection in either the broken or the intact loops.
The COSI steam condensation model is described in WCAP-10054-P, Addendum 2, Revision 1,
Addendum to the Westinghouse Small-Break LOCA Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP Code "Safety Injection Into the Broken Loop and COSI Condensation Model" Westinghouse Electric Corporation, by C.M. Thompson et al., October 1995 and WCAP-11767, "COSI SI/Steam Condensation Experiment Analysis" Westinghouse Electric Corporation, by D,J.
Shimeck.
The COSI model has been reviewed by the staff and formal approval is expected, but not yet issued.
9sos<50<m 9sosas PDR ADQCK 05000250 P
A spectrum of four cases was analyzed.
The 3 inch cold-leg break was found to be the limiting small-break LOCA with respect to peak cladding temperature with a value of 1,688 'F.
This value accounts for the impact of an interruption in safety injection of up to 2 minutes.
This interruption would occur at the end of the RWST injection (260,000 gallons minimum) when switch over to cold-leg recirculation takes place.
During this interruption it was estimated that the fuel cladding will undergo a 400 'F temperature rise assuming that the heat-up is adiabatic.
The two minutes are needed for the switch-over and valve stroke time.
The operation is covered by the Turkey Point Emergency Operating Procedures (EOPs) 3/4-ES-1.3 "Transfer to Cold Leg Recirculation" steps 19 through 25.
Because the small-break LOCA analysis was performed using an NRC-approved code and the results satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, we find the results acceptable.
- 2. 1 Pro osed Technical S ecification Chan es The technical specification controls section 6.9. 1.7 will be modified to reference the k(z) curve in the evaluation.
The following references will be added:.
3.
WCAP-10054-P-A (Proprietary) and WCAP-10081-NPA (non-proprietary)
"Westinghouse Small Break ECCS Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP Code",
October 1985.
a 4.
WCAP-10054-.P Addendum 2, Revision 1, (Proprietary)
"Addendum to the Westinghouse Small Break ECCS Evaluation Model Using the NOTRUMP Code:
Safety Injection into the Broken Loop and COSI Condensation Model",
October 1995m¹
¹This reference is only to be used subsequent to NRC approval.
The changes are justified because they reflect the changes to the NOTRUMP code on which the small break LOCA analysis was based.
Therefore, they are acceptable.
- 2. 2
~Summar Staff review of the submittal showed that the small break LOCA analysis was performed with conservative assumptions, using a code reviewed by the staff, for which formal approval is expected shortly.
The results satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and therefore, are acceptable.
Consequently we find the proposed technical specifications to be acceptable, subject to the limitation that they will become effective after the issuance of the NOTRUMP code COSI modification.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
Based upon the written notice of the proposed amendments, the Florida State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRO CONS IDERATION The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 47618).
Accordingly, the amendments must 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 Commission 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. Lois Date: August 13, 1996
4 I
k 5