ML20134M360
| ML20134M360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 02/12/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134M351 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702200210 | |
| Download: ML20134M360 (3) | |
Text
.
044 t
g 4
UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED AMENDMENT NO. 87 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-85 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNIT 2 s
DOCKET NO. 50-353 1.0,[NTRODUCTION By letter dated December 6, 1996, as supplemented January 15, and 28, 1997, 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 revise TS Section 2.1 and
~
its associated Bases to reflect the change in the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits due to the plant specific evaluation performed by General 4
Electric Company (GE) for LGS, Unit 2, Cycle 5 (LGS 2C5). The January 15, and 28, 1997, letters provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested a change to the LGS 2C5 TSs in accordance with the 10 CFR 50.90. The proposed revision to TS Section 2.1 and its associated TS Bases is described below.
l The MCPR safety limits in TS 2.1 and its associated Bases are proposed to be changed from 1.07 to 1.11 for operation with two recirculation loops, and from l.08 to 1.12 for single loop operation (SLO). These changes are based on the cycle-specific analysis performed by GE for LGS 2C5 mixed core of GE13/GE11/GE6 fuel. The cycle-specific parameters used included the actual core loading, the most limiting permissible control blade patterns, the actual bundle parameters, and the full cycle exposure range.
By letter dated August 4, 1996, supplemented by letter dated December 4, 1996, i
the licensee requested a change to the LGS, Unit 2, Cycle 4 (LGS 2C4) MCPR safety limits from 1.07 to 1.10 for operation with two recirculation loops, and from 1.08 to 1.12 for SLO. The staff approved this licensee's request in a letter dated January 29, 1997. This earlier staff approval has been considered in this evaluation.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the TS Section 2.1 and its associated Bases. The staff finds that these changes are based on the analyses using LGS 2C5 cycle-specific inputs and approved methodologies 9702200210 970212 DR ADOCK 0500 3
l j
including GESTAR II (NEDE-24011-P-A-II, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5, November 1995), and NEDO-10985-A, January 1977, for both single and dual loop operation 1
and finds them acceptable.
l Because the R-factor methodology referenced in NEDE-24011-P-A-11 is not applicable to the part-length Gell and GE13 fuel, a revised R-factor methodology described in NEDC-32505P, "R-Factor Calculation Method for Gell, GE12, and GE13 Fuel," November 1995, was used. The revised R-factor calculation method uses the same NRC-approved equation stated in GESTAR II (NEDE-240ll-P-A-ll) 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 GE13 and the relevant information provided in the proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR II, NEDE-24011, December 13, 1996, (currently under staff review), and finds it acceptable for application to the Gell and GE13 fuel in LGS 2C5.
l The staff requested the licensee to confirm that for the LGS 2C5, Rod Withdrawl Error (RWE) analysis, the MCPR is the limiting parameter for setting the Rod Block Monitor (RBM) operabilty conditions. Additionally, the staff asked the licensee to confirm that the results for the cycle-specific RWE analysis i
performed for LGS 2C5 demonstrated that the 1% cladding plastic strain criterion was met, and was not the limiting parameter. The licensee confirmed that the above statements are correct during the January 24, 1997, conference call, and documented this in its January 28, 1997, letter.
Based on this evaluation, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to TS 2.1 and its associated Bases are acceptable, because they have been analyzed based on the 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 67582). 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, i
i
~
1
-3 4
1 i
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 oporation 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 Contributors:
T. Huang F. Rinaldi Date: February 12, 1997 l
1 i
1 l
?
a i
i r
1 l
i 4
4