ML20134D732
| ML20134D732 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/29/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134D724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702050340 | |
| Download: ML20134D732 (3) | |
Text
j> -
g\\
1 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION 4
t"ASHIN3TCN, D.C. 20666 0001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED AMENDMENT NO. 83 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-85 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPAN1 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-353
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 5, 1996, as supplemented December 4, 1996, the Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would revises TS Section 2.1 and its associated TS Bases to reflect the change in the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits due to the plant specific evaluation performed by General Electric Company (GE), for LGS Unit 2 Cycle 4 LGS 2C4. The December 4, 1996, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or the Federal Reaister notice, j
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested changes to LGS 2C4 TSs in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90.
The proposed revision of TS 2.1 and its associated TS Bases is described below.
The MCPR safety limits in TS 2.1 and its associated Bases are proposed to be i
changed from 1.07 to 1.10 for operation with two racirculation loops, and from 1.08 to 1.12 for single loop operation (SLO). These changes are based on the cycle-specific analysis performed by GE for LGS 2C4 mixed core of GE11/GE9/GE6 1
fuel. The cycle-specific parameters used included the actual core loading, i
the most limiting permissible control blade patterns, and actual exposure-dependent rod power for R-factor distributions Also, calculations were performed for several points in the cycle.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to TS Section 2.1 and its associated Bases. The staff finds that these changes are based on the analyses using LGS 2C4 cycle-specific inputs and approved methodologies, including GESTAR II (NEDE-240ll-P-A-11, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5, November 1995), and NED0-10985-A, January 1977, for both single and dual loop-operation, and finds them acceptable.
Because the R-facter methodology referenced in NEDE-24011-P-A-11 is not applicable to the part-length Gell fuel, an improved R-factor methodology described in NEDC-32505P, "R-Factor Calculation Method for Gell, GE12 and GE13 Fuel", November 1995, was used.
The improved R-factor calculation method uses 9702050340 970129 PDR ADOCK 05000353 P
. the same NRC-approved equation stated in GESTAR (NEDE-24011-P-A) with the correction factors to account for the peaking factor effects due to the part-length-rod design. The staff has reviewed the R-factor calculation method for the Gell and finds it acceptable for application to the Gell fuel in LGS 2C4.
A telephone conference was held on November 5,1996 with the licensee to clarify the cycle-specific analyses with respect to the cause of 0.03 increase above the generic MCPR safety limit of 1.07 for dual loop operation and 0.04 increase for single loop operation. The licensee's responses to the staff's questions are documented in the December 4, 1996 submittal. The staff has also reviewed these responses and found them acceptable since (1) the LGS 2C4 is not an equilibrium core; (2) the fresh Cycle 4 Gell bundles have higher enrichment and a flatter R-factor distribution; and (3) LGS 2C4 is loaded with a higher batch fraction to achieve a two-year cycle.
Based on our evaluation, the staff concludes that the changes to TS Section 2.1 and its associated Bases are acceptable for LGS 2C4 application since the changes are based on analyses using NRC-approved methods.
{
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement 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 amendment involves 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 57491). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 amendment.
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
. 2 activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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:
T. Huang Date: January 29, 1997
)
1