ML18204A025
| ML18204A025 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | PROJ0712, 99901376 |
| Issue date: | 07/30/2018 |
| From: | Dennis Morey NRC/NRR/DLP/PLPB |
| To: | Head J GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas |
| Golla J, 415-1002 | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2016-TOP-0013, NEDE-24011-P-A-23 | |
| Download: ML18204A025 (10) | |
Text
July 30, 2018 Mr. Jerald G. Head Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC P.O. Box 780, M/C A-18 Wilmington, NC 28401-0780
SUBJECT:
FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION FOR GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL -
AMERICAS, LLC, PROPOSED AMENDMENT 43 TO NEDE-24011-P-A-23, GENERAL ELECTRIC STANDARD APPLICATION FOR REACTOR FUEL (GESTARII) SECTION 3.4 (EPID NO. L-2016-TOP-0013)
Dear Mr. Head:
By letter dated November 14, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML16319A252), Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas, LLC (GNF) submitted Proposed Amendment 43 to NEDE-24011-P-A-23 [Rev. 26 as of this document date], General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTARII) Section 3.4 to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff for review.
By letter dated June 26, 2018, an NRC draft safety evaluation (SE) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18176A053) regarding our approval of Proposed Amendment 43 was provided for your review and comment. By letter dated July 13, 2018 (ADAMS Accession No. ML18194A542), you stated that you did not identify any proprietary information, factual errors, or clarity concerns in the draft SE.
The NRC staff has found that Proposed Amendment 43 to NEDE-24011-P-A-26 is acceptable for referencing in licensing applications for nuclear power plants to the extent specified and under the limitations delineated in the TR and in the enclosed final SE. The final SE defines the basis for our acceptance of the TR.
Our acceptance applies only to material provided in the subject TR. We do not intend to repeat our review of the acceptable material described in the TR. When the TR appears as a reference in licensing applications, our review will ensure that the material presented applies to the specific plant involved. License amendment requests that deviate from this TR will be subject to a plant-specific review in accordance with applicable review standards.
J. Head In accordance with the guidance provided on the NRC website, we request that GNF publish the approved Amendment 43 to NEDE-24011-P-A-26, within three months of receipt of this letter.
The approved version shall incorporate this letter and the enclosed final SE after the title page.
The approved versions shall include a "-A" (designating approved) following the TR identification symbol.
If future changes to the NRCs regulatory requirements affect the acceptability of this TR, GNF will be expected to revise the TR appropriately or justify its continued applicability for subsequent referencing. Licensees referencing this TR would be expected to justify its continued applicability or evaluate their plant using the revised TR.
Sincerely, R/A Dennis C. Morey, Chief Licensing Processes Branch Division of Licensing Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 9991376
Enclosure:
Final SE
ML18204A025; *concurrence via e-mail NRR-106 OFFICE NRR/DLP/PLPB/PM NRR/DLP/PLPB/LA* NRR/DSS/SNPB/BC NRR/DLP/PLPB/BC NAME JGolla DHarrison RLukes (SKrepel for) DMorey DATE 7/25/18 7/24/18 7/26/18 7/30/18 GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas Project No. 712 Docket No. 9991376 cc:
Mr. James F. Harrison GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC Vice President - Fuel Licensing P.O. Box 780, M/C A-55 Wilmington, NC 28401-0780 james.harrison@ge.com Dr. Brian R. Moore General Manager, Core & Fuel Engineering Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas, LLC P.O. Box 780, M/C A-75 Wilmington, NC 28401-0780 Brian.Moore@gnf.com Ms. Lisa K. Schichlein Senior Project Manager, Regulatory Affairs GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC P.O. Box 780, M/C A-70 Wilmington, NC 28401-0780
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION FOR AMENDMENT 43 TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUEL TOPICAL REPORT NEDE-24011-P-A-US, GENERAL ELECTRIC STANDARD APPLICATION FOR REACTOR FUEL (GESTAR II) SECTION 3.4 FINAL CORE LOADING PATTERN COMPARISON (RELOAD CORES)
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
By letter dated November 14, 2016, Global Nuclear Fuel - Americas, LLC (GNF) submitted Amendment 43 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML16319A252) to Topical Report (TR) NEDE-24011-P-A-23, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II, U. S. Supplement) to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff for review.
In Amendment 43, GNF requests changes to Section 3.4, Final Core Loading Pattern Comparison (Reload Cores), of GESTAR II to make the final core loading pattern criterion more precise and reflective of processes that have evolved over the years. Some changes were editorial in nature to use terminology consistent with the Supplemental Reload Licensing Report (SRLR).
The Nuclear Performance and Code Review branch (SNPB) staff has reviewed the GNF request. The draft safety evaluation (SE) for the Amendment 43 follows.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
Regulatory guidance for the review of fuel system design and analysis is based on General Design Criteria (GDC)-10, GDC-27, and GDC-35 of Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50 Appendix A. The review criteria for fuel system design and analysis methodology is provided in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 4.2, Fuel System Design. In accordance with SRP Section 4.2, the objectives of the fuel system safety review are to provide assurance that:
- a. The fuel system is not damaged as a result of normal operation and anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs),
- b. Fuel system damage is never so severe as to prevent control rod insertion when it is required,
- c. The number of fuel rod failures is not underestimated for postulated accidents, and
- d. Coolability is always maintained.
Enclosure
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
3.1 Introduction Plant reload licensing process assumes the condition of the core at the end of the previous cycle as an initial core to start the current cycle loading determination. Therefore, the final core loading pattern may not be identical to the reference core loading pattern. To ensure that the results of the licensing analysis performed on the reference core loading pattern are applicable to the final core loading pattern, certain key parameters, which affect the licensing analysis, are examined to ensure that there is no significant adverse effect. With this examination completed, it can be assured that the final core loading pattern satisfies the licensing basis for the core operation.
This amendment identifies the key parameters that measure the deviation between the reference core loading pattern and the final core loading pattern. The parameters listed and described below were determined to be important to the licensing analysis and the allowed deviations are defined. For each of the revised sections in Section 3.4 of GESTAR II, GNF describes the basis for the change so as to make the criterion for each key parameter more precise and up to date with these latest processes. Some of the changes were editorial in nature to use terminology consistent with the SRLR.
3.2 Previous End-of-Cycle Exposure The previous end-of-cycle (EOC) exposure deviation which is the actual EOC exposure versus assumed EOC exposure must be within the range considered in the licensing analysis.
Basis Clarification includes the replacement of significant deviation from the assumed value, and the criterion is that the EOC exposure must be within the range considered in the licensing analysis.
Deviations from the previous cycle EOC exposure can occur when the previous cycle has an early shutdown or the plant did not operate to the capacity factor that had been assumed. This can result in lower EOC exposure for the previous cycle and more reactivity carried over to the next cycle and is accounted for in the licensing analysis by analyzing a range of previous EOC exposures to ensure that key licensing criteria such as shutdown margin are met. If the previous EOC exposure is not within the range considered, then specific analyses are required as indicated in Section 3.12.
3.3 Core Average Axial Exposure Distribution The final core loading pattern axial exposure shape will have to be shown bounded by the axial exposure shapes used for the licensing analysis.
Basis This section is modified to clarify that the criteria applies to the upcoming cycle and not just at the EOC. The axial exposure shape is bounded by the axial exposure shapes used for the licensing analysis.
3.4 Number and Fuel Type of New Bundles The number and fuel type of new bundles loaded in the final core loading pattern must match the number in the reference (SRLR) core loading pattern.
Basis The new criterion is more definitive and tighter in that the revised criterion requires that the number of new bundles for each fuel type loaded must match the reference core loading pattern. This new criterion removes the flexibility to reduce the number of new bundles without further evaluation. If the utility decides to reduce the number of new bundles to reduce reactivity, specific analyses are required as indicated in Section 3.12.
3.5 Number and Fuel Type of Exposed Bundles If the number of available irradiated bundles of a given fuel type is less than specified in the reference core loading pattern, bundles of a different fuel type of lower reactivity may be substituted. If a bundle is not available due to damage, it is not suitable for operation.
Basis This change is editorial in nature.
3.6 Locations of New Bundles A new bundle of a particular fuel type must be loaded only into the location that has been designated to receive this new bundle fuel type in the reference core loading pattern.
Basis The previous title of this section Locations of Reload Bundles was changed to Locations of New Bundles for consistent terminology. The previous wording allowed for a reduction in the number of new bundles; and the new criterion is more restrictive and the reduction in the number of bundles should be accompanied by specific analysis as indicated in Section 3.12.
3.7 Locations of Non-Peripheral Irradiated Assemblies Criterion-1:
The locations of individual non-peripheral irradiated bundles is preserved in the core loading pattern, except changes are necessary due to available inventory or due to different operating history relative to the reference core loading pattern.
Criterion-2:
If a change is required, an irradiated bundle may be replaced with an irradiated bundle of lower reactivity for regions of high importance and vice versa, i.e., to remedy a different operating history, replacement of an irradiated bundle with an irradiated bundle of higher reactivity for regions of low importance is done. High importance region is defined as locations that are at least four rows in from the periphery.
Basis The first criterion is revised to be more restrictive. An example for a different operating history relative to the reference core loading pattern would be bundles that are controlled for very long periods due to leaker suppression.
The second criterion differentiates between regions of low and high importance. Low importance regions of the core are within three rows of periphery, and high importance regions are everywhere else. In order to allow shuffling bundles from overly controlled regions due to power suppression, the matching bundle exposure and burn history were removed for regions of low importance. For regions of high importance, the criterion was replaced with a bundle of low reactivity criterion.
3.8 Locations of Peripheral Irradiated Bundles Bundles in the core periphery may be shuffled to other locations in the periphery relative to the reference core loading pattern.
Basis (for Shifting of Edge Bundles)
This section is proposed to be changed more broadly to include the locations of the peripheral irradiated bundles. The change to shuffling has been restricted to bundles on the periphery to be shuffled to other locations on the periphery. The bundles on the periphery have ample margin and the small added uncertainty due to reflector effects is not significant.
3.9 Symmetry The section on symmetry is removed since it did not impose any criteria on the core loading and it was simply informational.
3.10 Shutdown Margin Licensees should demonstrate that adequate shutdown margin (SDM) exists for final core loading pattern.
Basis The change suggested in this section is primarily editorial. The new wording is more definitive for the criterion such that it requires adequate cold SDM.
3.11 Stability This section on stability is proposed to be removed since it did not impose any specific criteria on the core loading.
3.12 Re-Examination of Bases If the criteria listed in Sections 3.2 through 3.11 are NOT met, the applicant (GEH) is proposing a re-examination of the reference core loading pattern licensing analysis based on the final core loading pattern. This re-examination consists of evaluating parameters that affect the licensing
analysis or re-performing the licensing analysis for the limiting criteria (condition). The parameters that are proposed to be re-examined are:
- 1. Cold shutdown margin
- 2. Standby liquid control system shutdown margin
- 3. Safety Limit MCPR
- 4. Core-wide AOOs
- 5. Rod withdrawal error
- 6. Misloaded fuel assembly (when analyzed as an AOO)
- 7. Stability These parameters are chosen since they are reported in cycle-specific licensing documentation in the country specific GESTAR II supplement. The above parameters can be affected by changes between the final core loading pattern and the reference core loading pattern.
Basis Though the changes to this section are primarily editorial, these key licensing analyses have been well established and need to be evaluated if any of the criteria listed in 3.2 through 3.12 are not met.
3.13 Summary and Conclusion The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes to GESTAR II with respect to final core loading pattern criterion that have evolved over the years. The staff has determined that some of these changes were editorial in nature and consistent with the SRLR. The NRC staff has determined that all the changes listed above were to make the criterion for each key parameter more precise and up to date with the latest processes. The staff accepts the changes to GESTAR II through this amendment number 43.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The NRC staff has reviewed the request for Amendment 43 to GESTAR II and Section 3.4 of GESTAR II to make the final core loading pattern criterion more precise and reflective of processes that have evolved over the years. Some changes were editorial in nature to use terminology consistent with the SRLR. The applicant has examined to ensure that the results of the licensing analysis performed on the reference core loading pattern are applicable to the final core loading pattern. The staff reviewed the changes to the process of core loading pattern and determined that the changes are acceptable. Therefore the staff approves amendment 43 to GESTAR II.
5.0 REFERENCES
- 1. Letter, MFN 16-084 from Brian Moore (GNF- A) to US NRC, Proposed Amendment 43 to NEDE-24011-P-A-24, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II) Section 3.4, Global Nuclear Fuel, November 14, 2016.
- 2. Letter MI170194 from Brian R. Moore (GNF-A) to USNRC, Approved Version of NEDC-33840P, Revision 0, The PRIME Model for Transient Analysis of Fuel Rod Thermal-Mechanical Performance, Global Nuclear Fuel, August 18, 2017 (Enclosure 1, NEDC-33840P-A, Revision 1).
- 3. NEDE-24011-P-A, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II), Global Nuclear Fuel, Latest approved version.
Principal Contributor: Mathew M. Panicker, NRR/DSS/SNPB 301-415-2987 Date: