ML20195G162
| ML20195G162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195G160 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9906150251 | |
| Download: ML20195G162 (4) | |
Text
_
t
.p
\\
UNITED STATES L
4 I
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
WASHINGTON D.C. soseHe01 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.107 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
RIVER REND STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated August 29,1996 (Reference 1), as supplemented by letter dated January 8,1998Property "Letter" (as page type) with input value "RBG-44344, Submits Response to NRC Staff Inquiries Re LAR 96-23 for Change to TS Concerning LPRM Calibr" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. (Reference 2), Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), requested changes to
' the Technical Spec;rications (TSs) for the River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBF). The proposed changes would revise requirements prescribed in TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.1.1.8 and allow RBS to increase the interval between whole core traversing in-core probe (TIP) to Local Power Range Monitor (LPRM) calibrations from 1,000 megawatt days per ton (MWD /T) to 2,000 MWD /T. The original application had also included the elimination of T-factor adjustments in the Average Power Range Monitors (APRM) and improvement in the calculation i
of Reactivity Anomalies. These issues were previously evaluated and addressed under TAC No, M96509 and License Amendment No.100. The January 8,1998, letterProperty "Letter" (as page type) with input value "RBG-44344, Submits Response to NRC Staff Inquiries Re LAR 96-23 for Change to TS Concerning LPRM Calibr" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. provided additional
. Information that did not change the scope of the original application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
i The proposed change was supported by reference to General Electric (GE) Licensing Topical Repo 1 NEDC-32694P, " Power Distribution Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR [ minimum i
critical power ratio) Evaluations," submitted June 10,1997, which was under staff review. The i
staff review of the Licensing Topical Report NEDC-32694P has been completed,in conjunction with' reviews of Ucensing Topical Report NEDC-32601P, " Methodology and Uncertainties for.
Safety Umit MCPR Evaluation," and the " Proposed Amendment 25 to GE Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P A (GESTAR). The review found these licensing topical reports to be acceptable for referencing in license applications as stated in the staff's Safety Evaluation
)
l-(Refer'ence 3) on March 11,1999.
i
- 3.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested a change to the RBS TS in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. The TS changt request was to revise TS SR 3.3.1.1.8, "RPS [ reactor protection system)
Instrumentation, LPRM Calibration," and the associated BASES to increase the interval between whole core LPRM calibrations from 1,000 MWD /r to 2,000 MWD /T.
9906150251 990611 PDR ADOCK 05000458 P
PDR p
E e,,
so l The revised TS would allow the licensee to increase the interval between LPRM calibrations from 1,000 MWD /T to 2,000 MWD /T on the basis that the uncertainty in the power distribution will remain below the previous limits contained in NEDO-10958 P-A, " General Electric BWR
[ boiling water reactor) Thermal Analysis Basis (GETAB) Data, Correlation and Design Application," January 1977. The current requirement was based on using the older P-1 core monitoring process and older design LPRM chambers, which experienced drift between calibrations. The basis for the requirement was that the added uncertainty in the nodal power distribution due to LPRM based operation between the whole core TIP and LPRM calibration should not increase the uncertainty allowed by the original GETAB standard deviatioMmit of 8.7 percent.
To assist the staff in its evaluation of the proposed TS change, a request for additional information was transmitted to the licensee (Reference 4). The licensee's response was received (Reference 5) and referenced the June 10,1997, submittal of NEDC-32694P,
" General Electric Licensing Topical for Power Distribution Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluations" as the generic reference for plants using the GE 3D MONICORE core monitoring systems.
k Recent detailed statistical evaluations of the uncertainty in LPRM-based monitoring cases run at exposure intervals in excess of 2,000 equivalent full power hours, as reviewed and accepted in Reference 3, have shown that the GETAB equivalen! safety limit of 8.7 percent would not be exceeded. This is due to improved LPRM chambers (tne NA200 and NA300 series) that exhibit consistent LPRM sensitivity throughout their useful nuclear life (up to 40,000 MWD /T), and to the improved core monitoring systems (GE MONICORE) that utilizes nodal diffusion theory I
coupled with plant data including the nuclear instrumentation. These evaluations have shown that the equivalent total nodal uncertainty for the increased calibration interval of 2,000 MWD /T would be 7.6 percent compared to the original GETAB requirement of 8.7 percent.
Therefore, it is acceptable to operate for 2,000 MWD /T between whole core LPRM calibrations for plants using the NA200 and NA300 series LPRM chambers in conjunction with the GE MONICORE core monitoring system.
'_On the basis of its review, the staff concludes that the proposed amendment to TS SR 3.3.1.1.8, " Calibrate the Local Power Range Monitors," to change the calibration frequency from 1,000 MWD /T average core exposure to 2,000 MWD /T average core exposure and to revise the associated BASES discussion is acceptable for incorporation. The staff has determined that the use of improved LPRM chambers NA200 and NA300 series and the improved GE MONICORE c7re monitoring system are still within the original GETAB requirements, as validated by the staff's review and approval of the recent GE licensing topical reports ir, Reference 3.
4.0 STA'i2 CONSULTATION In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Louisiana State Official was notified of j
the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
1 1
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a surveillance requirement. The NRC staff has detennined 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 55032 dated October 23,1996).
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.
6.0 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: E. Kendrick Date: June 11, 1999
)
1 1
e
..o REFERENCES-1._
Letter from J. R. McGaha, Jr., Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOl), to USNRC, " License Amendment Request (LAR) 96-23, Change to Technical Specifications Concerning i
Reactivity Anomalies, APRM setpoints and RPS Instrumentation," dated August 29, 1996.
2.
Letter from R. J. King (EOI), to USNRC, " Response to NRC Staff Inquiries Regarding License Amendment Request (LAR) 96-23, Change to Technical Specifications
~
Conceming LPRM Calibration," dated January 8,1998.
3.
Letter from F. Akstulewicz (NRR) to G. A. Watford (GE), " Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Reports NEDC-32601P, ' Methodology and Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCPR Evaluations'; NEDC-32694P, ' Power Distribution Uncertainties for Safety
- Limit MCPR Evaluation'; and ' Amendment 25 to NEDE 24011-P-A on Cycle-Specific Safety Limit MCPR' (TAC Nos. M97490, M99069 and M97491)," dated March 11,1999.
4.
Letter from D. L. Wigginton (NRR) to J. R. McGaha, Jr. (EOl), " River Bend Station, Unit 1 - Request for Additional Information: LPRM Calibration (TAC No. M98883)," dated September 9,1997.
5.
Letter from R. J. King (EOl) to USNRC, " Response to NRC Staff Inquiries Regarding License Amendment Request (LAR) 96-23, Change to Technical Specifications Conceming LPRM Calibration," dated January 8,1998.
i u