ML17164A628

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 145 & 114 to Licenses NPF-14 & NPF-22,respectively

ML17164A628
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	02/28/1995
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17164A627	List: ML17164A626 ML17164A628
References
NUDOCS 9503100101
Download: ML17164A628 (7)

Text

~gR Rfc<

~G Fp

~)

(1

<i '

4~

~

~O

+y*g4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555-000I SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.145TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-14 AM NDMENT NO 114 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.

NPF-22 PENNSYLVANIA POWER

& LIGHT COMPANY ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC.

SUS UEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1

AND 2 DOCKET NOS.

50-387 AND 388

1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated October 28,

1994, as supplemented by a letter dated December 29,

1994, the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS).

The requested changes would change the Technical Specifications (TS) for the two units by adding reference t20 (Unit 1) and reference t18 (Unit 2) to Section 6.9.3.2 as "PL-NF-90-001, Supplement 1, 'Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for BWR Design and Analysis:

Loss of Feedwater Heating Changes and Use of RETRAN MOD 5.

1,'eptember 1994."

These additions reflect changes to, the methodology that the licensee is using to perform its nuclear fuel reload analysis for the two units.

The December 29, 1994 letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.

2. 0 EVALUATION The NRC staff approved the use of Susquehanna RETRAN-02 MOD004 system model and the PP&L reload analysis methodology as documented in the following topical reports:

"Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for BWR Design and Analysis," PL-NF-90-001-A, July 1992 (Reference 2) and "gualification of Transient Analysis Methods for BWR Design and Analysis," PL-NF-89-005-A, July 1992 (Reference 3).

PP&L'~ currently approved methodology utilizes RETRAN-02 MOD004 with minor modifications to perform reload analyses to establish MCPR limits.

This proposed change is to replace RETRAN-02 MOD004 with RETRAN-02 MOD005. 1 for future licensing analyses.

The staff approved the use of RETRAN-002 MOD005. 1 in licensing applications (Reference 4).

Moreover, in addition to the EPRI tests, PP&L has conducted its own comparison of MOD004 and MOD005. 1 for licensing transients which use the RETRAN code.

Both versions of the code indicated essentially same results.

Upgrading of the RETRAN code allows for taking advantage of state-of-the-art technology.

PP&L's proposal to use the MOD005. 1 version is acceptable.

9503l00iOi 950228I&

PDR ADGCK 05000387 P

PDR i

J~

Section 2.3.2 of Reference 2 describes the current Loss of Feedwater Heating (LOFWH) analysis methodology.

Initially, PP&L was committed to perform cycle-specific analyses to confirm the applicability of the generic correlation.

The analyses consists primarily of a small number of SIMULATE calculations to confirm the applicability of the generic calculation.

The subject correlation is Equation 2.3-2 given in section 2.3.2,

HCPR,

= 1.10B HCPR, -0.027, where NCPR<

= Pre-transient core HCPR and HCPR,= Post transient core HCPR.

PP8L has performed LOFWH analysis on six cycles, including power uprate.

Each time, the results confirmed the validity of the generic correlation.

Additionally, the results of all six reloads have demonstrated that the fuel Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) limits would not be violated for an LOFWH event.

For Susquehanna, LOFWH is not the limiting event for establishing MCPR operating limits.

For future reload analyses, PP8L will continue to use the generic correlation to calculate delta CPR for the LOFWH event.

However, the cycle specific confirmation cases for the LOFWH event will not be performed.

In the event of a significant change to PP&L's operating strategy (e.g.; other than Siemens 9x9 fuel), either the validity of the generic correlation will be confirmed or the correlation will be adjusted to be conservative.

PP&L's proposal not to perform the cycle-specific confirmation for the LOFWH event is acceptable.

Based upon the above evaluation, the staff finds the TS changes requested by PP&L to be acceptable.

~2.1 Conclusion The upgrade to RETRAN-02 HOD005. 1 from MOD004 IN PP&L's licensing analysis methods is acceptable.

PP&L's proposal not to perform the cycle specific confirmation for the LOFWH event is also acceptable.

We have reviewed the information submitted by PP&L for Susquehanna Units I and 2 to justify the proposed changes.

Based on this review, we have concluded that appropriate information was submitted and the proposed change to the TS is acceptable.

Supplement I of Ref:

2 is approved.

Based upon the staff's review, as given in this safety evaluation, we find the application of supplement I to Ref:

2

~'acceptable for use in the SSES under the limitations delineated in this report.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.

The State official had no comments.

4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments relate to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements and also change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the

'l E,

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 (59 FR 65819).

Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10).

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 amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

G.

Thomas Date:

February 28, 1995

6.0 REFERENCES

1.

Letter from R.

Byram, PPRL, to NRC Document Control

Desk, dated October 28,

1994, "Proposed Amendment No.

176 to License NPF-14 and Proposed Amendment No.

130 to License NPF-22:

Addition of reference PL-NF-90-001, Supplement 1 to Section 6.9.3.2."

2.

"Application of Reactor Analysis Methods for BWR Design and Analysis,"

PL-NF-90-001-A, July 1992.

3.

"qualification of Transient Analysis Methods for BWR Design and Analysis,"

PL-NF-89-005-A, July 1992.

4.

"Acceptance for referencing of the RETRAN-02 MOD005. 1 code".

Letter dated April 12,

1992, from M. J. Virgilio, NRC, to C.

R.

Lehmann, PPKL.

5.

"Clarifications regarding proposed Amendments 176 (NPF-14) and 130 (NPF-22):

Minor reload methodology changes," letter dated December 29,

1994, from Robert G. Byram, PP&L, to NRC Document Control Desk.

0 r

N