ML20199C047
| ML20199C047 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199C045 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9711190198 | |
| Download: ML20199C047 (3) | |
Text
. _ _ _
pm:g$
t UNITED STATES p
s
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
wassiwovow, o.c. seenwooi
.\\.... /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-440
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 24, 1996, as supplemented on June 16 and October 2, 1997, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (the licens?e) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) to incorporate the revised Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) as calculated by General Electric (GE). The need to change the SLMCPR resulted from the 10 CFR Part 21 condition reported by GE in their letter to the NRC dated May 24, 1996. The requested changes would revise the SLMCPR from 1,07 to 1,09 for two recirculation loop operation and from 1.08 to 1.10 for single recirculation loop operation based on the cycle specific analysis of the mixed core of GE12/ Gell /GE10 for Cycle 7 fuel parameters.
Cycle 7 operation is scheduled to begin in October 1997.
The supplemental letters provided additional inforcation only and did not change the application or affect the proposed no significant hazards determination, 2.0 EVALUATION In a March 27, 1996, telephone call, GE notified the NRC that the SLMCPR generically calculated in accordance with the GE Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR 11) may be nonconservative when applied to some actual core and fuel designs.
After meeting with the NRC, and in accordance with commitmeats made to the NRC, GE 3erformed SLMCPR evaluations for all 31 ants utilizing GE fuel and informed tie affected )lants of the results T1e affected plants were then instructed to esta)lish administrative controls to ensure conformance with the revised safety limit.
Further review of this issue by GE resulted in the determination that this constituted a reportable condition per 10 CFR Part 21 as documented in the May 24, 1996, letter from GE to the NRC.-
The SLMCPR is a specified acce) table fuel design limit as defined by General Design Criterion 10 of 10 CFR 3 art 50, Appendix A.
The SLMCPR is applied to ensure fuel cladding integrity is not lost as a result of over-heating.
The SLMCPR defines the minimum allowable critical power ratio (CPR) at which 99.9%
of the fuel rods in the core are expacted to avoid boiling transition during the most limiting anticipated operational occurrence.
AD E E M 40 P
.PDR_
9 2
The SLHCPR in 15 2.1.1.2 is proposed to be changed from 1.07 to 1.09 for two loop operation and from 1.08 to 1.10 for single loop operation when the reactor steam dome pressure is t 785 psig and core flow 210% rated core flow.
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes to TS 2.1.1.2 which are based on the analyses performed using Perry cycle specific inputs and approved methodologies including GESTAR 11 (NEDE-24011 P A-11. Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5 and its reference NED0 10958 A. January 1977) and found them acceptable.
Because the R-factor methodology referenced in NEDE-240ll P A 11 described in NEDC 32505P.part length Gell fuel, a revised R factor methodology is not applicable to the R-Factor Calculation Method for Gell. GE12 and GED Fuel". November 1995 was used.
The revised R factor calculation method uses the same NRC-approved equation stated in GESTAR-(NEDE 24011-P-A) except that it substitutes rod-integrated powers for the lattice peaking factors to account for the effects of the part-length rod design.
The staff has reviewed the R-factor calculation method for Gell and GE12 fuel, the relevant information provided in the topical re> ort of NEDE 3260lP.
" Methodology and Uncertainties for Safety Limit MCP1 Evaluation" (which is under staff review), and the supplemental information provided by the licensee in their letter dated June 16. 1997.
The staff has found that the justification for the revised SLHCPR values is comparable to the generic Gell /GE10 and GE12 SLHCPR evaluations-and is acce) table for PNPP. since the core MCPR distribution and bundle R factor distri)utions evaluated for the nonequilibrium Cycle 7 core is more restrictive than that of the generic GE11/GE10 and GE12 equilibrium core.
As previously discussed by incorporating the revised SLHCPR values. 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are expected to avoid boiling transition during the most limiting anticipated operational occurrence.
The licensee's letter of October 2. 1997, added a footnote to TS 5.6.5. " Core Operating Limits Re) ort (COLR)".
This footnote clarifies that the methods used to determine tie core operating limits for Cycle 7 operation shall include the R-factor methodology and the cycle specific information in NEDE-3260lP approved in this safety evaluation.
This will ensure that values for cycle specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits (e.g., nuclear limits, transient-analysis limits, and accident limits) of the safety analysis are met.
Based on our review, the staff concludes that the proposed changes to the TS are acceptable for the PNPP Cycle 7 ap)lication since the changes are analyzed based on the NRC ap) roved method and tie most conservative cycle specific parameters for SLMC)R analysis are used.
0)eration beyond Cycle 7 will require separate, supporting analysis for tie SLHCPR values.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In'accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
n m
-m
,m_
mm.,.--..m--.-.-
-,---,---,..,-,r---,
.w.c
%.... -. - + --
m--,
yuso-
l 3-
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendnant involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component-located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The-staff has determined that the amendment involves no si nificant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, o any effluent that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no si nificant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such f nding (62 FR 6569). The amendment also changes record keeping or reporting requirements. Accordingly. this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 51.22(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 this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSl(A The staff 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 pro)osed manner: (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Commission's regulations:
and (3) the issuance of this 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: November 7, 1997
,