ML20134M699
| ML20134M699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134M691 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611260006 | |
| Download: ML20134M699 (5) | |
Text
~..-
?
=
p***%s p
4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066 4001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 131 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-29 l
ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.. ET AL.
l GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-416 m
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 31, 1996 (Reference 1), which superseded letter dated May 9, 1996, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Operating Cycle 9 at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The requested changes would (1) revise the safety limit j
minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) from 1.06 to 1.12 for two recirculation loop operation and from 1.07 to 1.14, in TS Section 2.1.1.2, for single recirculation loop operation to support a mixed core of General Electric l
Company (GE) GE-11 fuel and Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) 9x9-5 fuel for Cycle 9 operation, and (2) added two General Electric topical reports to the l
list of documents describing the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits in Section 5.6.5 of the TSs.
In response to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's request for additional information dated August 22, 1996 (Reference 2) with respect to the l
Entergy approach for the mixed-core SLHCPR calculations, the licensee has l
provided responses and clarifications in letters dated September 5,1996 l
(Reference 3), October 22, 1996 (Reference 4) and November 15, 1996 (Reference 5). The licensee added a footnote to TS Sections 2.1.1.2 and 5.6.5 l
to state that the SLMCPR values and the additional reports in those sections were applicable only for Cycle 9 operation of the unit in its letters dated November 20 and 21, 1996 (References 7 and 8). These five letters from the licensee provided information that did not change the initial proposed no ignificant hazards consideration determination for the proposed action.
i 2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested changes to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Facility Operating License in accordance with the 10 CFR 50.90. The revised TSs were proposed as follows:
(
(1) Specification 2.1.1 Reactor Core Safety Limits Due to the use of Gell fuel and the first cycle operation with a mixed core of SPC (9x9-5) and GE (Gell) for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Cycle 9 operation, the SLMCPR is proposed to change from 1.06 to a
1.12 for two recirculation loop operation and from 1.07 to 1.14 for i
single loop operation based on the cycle-specific analysis performed 9611260006 961121 PDR ADOCK 05000416 P
pop
. by GE (Reference 6).
Plant-and cycle-specific fuel and core parameters were used including the actual core loading, the most limiting permissible control blade patterns, the actual bundle parameters, and the full cycle exposure range (References 3 and 6).
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes which are based on:
(1) the analyses performed using Grand Gulf plant-and cycle-specific inputs and approved methodologies including GESTAR II (NEDE-24011-P-A-11, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5) and NEDO-10985-A, January 1977, for both two loop and single loop operation; (2) a two-step process for mixed core analyses using real test data to support the modified GEXL critical power prediction (References 3 and 4); and (3) a conservatively derived uncertainty value for GEXL application to the Siemens fuel based on comparison to GEXL predictions of experimental test data. The staff has also reviewed the expression for the total uncertainty defined in the submittals (References 2, 3, 4 and 6) and does not agree that the uncertainties from the two-step process are independent and the covariance term is zero. However, the Item (3) stated above is valid since the total uncertainty is substantially larger than those uncertainties associated with the experimental test data. Therefore, the approach and the proposed SLMCPR values for Grand Gulf Unit 1 Cycle 9 mixed core SLMCPR calculation are acceptable.
Because the R-factor 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 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 Gell and finds it acceptable for application to the Gell fuel in Grand Gulf Unit 1 Cycle 9 operation. The new values will ensure that greater than 99 percent of the fuel rods will avoid transition boiling, thus preserving fuel cladding integrity for Cycle 9.
(2) Specifications 5.6.5 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
Two topical reports are proposed to be added to TS Section 5.6.5.
They are the following:
Item 19. NEDE-24011-P-A, General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR-II) with exception to misplaced fuel bundle analyses as discussed in GNRO-96/0087 and the generic MCPR Safety Limit Analysis as discussed in GNR0-96/0100, letters from C. R.
Hutchinson to NRC; and Item 20. J11-02863SLMCPR, Revision 1, "GGNS Cycle 9 Safety Limit MCPR Analysis" (Reference 6).
~
-~1
i
' These revisions allow the use of approved methods for the Grand Gulf Unit 1 Cycle 9 mixed core analyses and will ensure that valves for cycle-specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits (e.g.,
fuel thermal mechanical limits, core thermal hydraulic limits, emergency core cooling systems limits, nuclear limits, and accident analysis limits) of the safety analysis are met. Therefore, they are acceptable.
However, they should be revised for next reload, since they are applicable for the Cycle 9 operation only.
-(3) Bases 2.1.1.1, 2.1.1.2, 2.0, 3.2.2, and 3.2 m
The proposed Bases changes are acceptable because they correspond to the proposed TS changes stated above and are administrative in nature.
Based on our review and consistent with the submittals of November 20 and 21, 1996, we conclude that the above described TS changes involving the SLMCPRs for both two loop and single loop operation and adding two additional approved methodologies to the COLR are acceptable galy for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Cycle 9 operation since the changes are analyzed based on the NRC-approved methods using Grand Gulf cycle-specific inputs.
3.0 CONCLUSION
S We have reviewed the request by the licensee to revise the TSs of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit I for the Cycle 9 operation.
Based on the review, i
we conclude that the requested TS revision to SLMCPR and COLR is acceptable i
only for the Cycle 9 operation.
Placing a condition on the proposed action that (1) the SLMCPR values for two
{
loop operation and single loop operation and (2) the two reports being added j
to TS Section 5.6.5 were only applicable for Cycle 9 operation was discussed with the licensee.
By letters dated November 20 and 21, 1996, respectively, the licensee agreed to add a footnote to the SLMPCR values proposed for TS Section 2.1.1.2 and the additional reports for TS Section 5.6.5 that stated j
the SLMCPR values and the additional re) orts "are applicable only for Cycle 9 4
operation."
The footnote will limit t1e applicability of the proposed SLMCPR l
values and the proposed two reports to only the upcoming Cycle 9 operation for l
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
l Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the TSs are acceptable.
4.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter (GNRO-96/0087) from C. R. Hutchinson to NRC, " Grand Gulf Nuclear
]
Station Revision to Proposod An,endment to the Operating License 96/008, Revision 1," July 31, 1996.
w
l 1
I*
}
l i J
l' 2.
Letter from J. N. Donohev (NRC) to C. R. Hutchinson, " Request for Additional Information Related to Proposed License Amendment on Minimum j
Critical Power Safety Limit," August 22, 1996.
'3.
Letter (GNRO-96/00100) from C. R. Hutchinson to NRC, " Response to NRC Request for Additional Information regarding Minimum Critical Power Safety Limit," September 5, 1996.
4-i 4.
Letter (GNRO-96/00119) from J. J. Hagan to NRC, " Revised Response to l
NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Minimum Critical Power Safety Limit," October 22, 1996.
l 1
l 5.
Letter (GNR0-96/00126) from A. C. Goel to NRC, " Response to NRC Request j
for Additional Information regarding Minimum Critical Power Safety j
Limit," November 15, 1996.
i
- 6. to the License Amendment Request Dated July 31, 1996, Licensing Topical Report," Jll-02863SLMCPR, General Electric GGNS Cycle 9 SLMCPR Analysis (Revision 1)," July 1996.
7.
Letter (GNRO-96/00128) from M. J. Meisner to NRC, " Revision to Proposed Amendment to the Operating License PCOL-96/008, Revision 2," November 20, 1996.
i 8.
Letter (GNR0-96/00129) from M. J. Meisner to NRC, " Revision to Proposed Amendment to the Operating License PCOL-96/008, Revision 3," November 21, J
1996.
7.0 STATE CONSULTATIQN In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Mississippi State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
8.0 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 and changes survelliance requirements. 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 50342). The amendment also changes recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (c)(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 amendment.
_ ~ -
e
9.0 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 Cmunission'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: Tai Huang Date: November 21, 1996 l
1 l
l 4
i l
ij i
}
.