ML20204B407
| ML20204B407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204B399 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9903220114 | |
| Download: ML20204B407 (4) | |
Text
_
__.. _ _ _ ~. _ -
s.
WEhs p
UNITED STATES g
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 0001 o
i t
e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION I
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.131 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-11 AND AMENDMENT NO.116 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-18 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LASALLE COUNTY STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 14,1998, Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed, the k ansee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. This submittal superseded a submittal dated August 29,1997, in its entirety. Additional information was submitted by letters dated October 13,1998, and December 23,1998. The December 23,1999, submittal provided additional clarifying information that did not change the 1
initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination. The proposed changes are designed to support the use of Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) ATRIUM-98 fuel during future operating cycles. The licensee proposed the following key changes:
1) incorporation of SPC's new methodologies that will enhance operational flexibility and reduce the likelihood of future plant derates.
2) changes to the LaSalle Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety Limits, and 3) administrative changes that adopt improved Standard Technical Specification (iSTS) language where appropriate.
2.0 EVALUATION The TS changes required to support the u6e of ATRIUM-9B fuel in LaSalle, Units 1 and 2, are evaluated below:
2.1 Addition of Tooical Reoorts The licensee proposes to add the following topical reports to section 6.6.A.6.b of the LaSalle TSs:
9903220114 990316 PDR ADOCK 03000373 P
pm i
)
e
- 2 BWR Jet Pump Model Revision for RELAX, ANF-91-0048(P)(A), Supplements 1 and 2, Siemens Power Corporation, October 1997; ANFB Critical Power Correlation Application for Coresident Fuel, EMF-1125(P)(A),
Supplement 1, Appendix C, Siemens Power Corporation, August 1997; ANFB Critical Power Correlation Determination of ATRIUM-98 Additive Constant Uncertainties, ANF-1125(P)(A), Supplement 1, Appendix E, Siemens Power Corporation, September 1998.
Addition of SPC Revised Jet Pumo Methodoloov The addition of the SPC Revised Jet Pump Methodology is needed to eliminate overly conservative average planar linear heat generation rate (APLHGR) limits derived from the currently referenced jet pump model. The Revised Jet Pump Methodology has been reviewed and approved by the NRC and is appropriate for the LaSalle units. Thus, addition of this methodology to the list of methodologies used for determining core operating limits is acceptable. Use of the revised jet pump methodology will continue to ensure that values for cycle specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits of the safety analysis are met. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
3.idition of Methodoloov for Co-resident Fuel LaSalle, Units 1 and 2, will be transitioning from General Electric (GE) to SPC fuel, including the use of associated methodologies, Due to the transition to SPC fuel, it was necessary for SPC to provide a methodology for application of their ANFB critical power correlation to the co-resident GE fuel. This topical report has been reviewed and approved by the NRC. The approval of this report listed the following two conditions:
1)
This methodology is applicable to once bumed co-resident fuel. Lead assemblies are excluded.
2)
A table comparing minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) data throughout the first reload exposure must be submitted to justify each plant applicat;en.
Comed provided the information to address the conditions for Unii 2 in a letter dated March 8, 1996. By letter dated December 23,1998, Comed stated that it will comply to the above conditions for Units 1 and 2 and committed to provide the requested table for Unit 1 as soon as the core design for Unit 1, Cycle 9, is available. Since the conditions for implementation of the topical are required to be met by the inclusion of the approved version of the topical report EMF-1125(P)(A) in the TS, the use of SPC Generic Methodology for Application of ANFB C-itical Power Correlation to Non-SPC Fuel, EMF-1125(P)(A), Supplement 1, Appendix C. is 4
acceptable for Units 1 and 2. The addition of this methodology to the LaSalle, Units 1 and 2, TS will ensure that values of cycle-specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits of the safety analysis are met.
i e
k 3
.y-r.
e, ou,.,
i i Addition of SPC Tonical The NRC's approval of this topical listed the following three conditions:
1)
The Additive Constant Uncertainty of 0.027 is applicable to SPC ATRIUM-98 fuel with a i
locci peaking factor of up to and including 1.22.
2)
For ATRIUM-9B fuel rods with a local peaking factor exceeding 1.22, with a maximum of the design limit specified on page 12 of Appendix E, an additional uncertainty will be imposed on a rod by rod l'esis such that the Additive Constant Uncertainty value of 0.029 will be used.
3)
The additive constants and additive constant uncertainties described in Appendix E are applicable to Ai RIUM-9B fuel operated within the following parameter ranges.
Pressure (psia) 600 to 1400 Mass Flow Rate (Ib/s) 4.8 to 41.7 Inlet Subcooling (Btu /lb) 8 to 82 Comed committed to these conditions for Units 1 and 2 in its December 23,1998, letter and will be required to comply with these conditions by the inclusion of the approved version of the topical report in the TS which lists these conditions. Thus, the SPC topical for ATRIUM-98 fuel, ANF-1125(P)(A), Supplement 1, Appendix E, is accepts,ble for use for LaSalle, Units 1 and 2.
The addition of this methodology will ensure that values for cycle-specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits of the safety analysis are met.
2.2 Chanae to the.MCPR Safety Limit The licensee proposes to change TS 2.1.2 to revise the MCPR Safety Limit due to the transition j
to SPC fuel. Using the SPC ANFB Critical Power Correlation methodology and the ATRIUM-9B additive constant uncertainty resulting from the approval of ANF-1125(P)(A), Appendix E, the MCPR Safety Limit for the LaSalle units will be 1.08 for dual loop operation and 1.09 for single loop operation. These values bound LaSalle, Unit 2, Cycle 8, operation and it is expected that these values will be supported for LaSslie, Unit 1, Cycle 9, operation. The applicability of the MCPR Safety Lirrit will be confirmed on a cycle-specific basis. The values are enticipated to j
bound the actual MCPR Safety LimM for future LaSalle SPC reloads. Since the MCPR Safety Limits of 1.08 for dual loop operation and 1.09 for single loop operation were calculated with an i
approved methodology and use the approved additive constant uncertainty from Appendix E, l
the new values will ensure that 99.9 percent of the fuel rods will avoid transition boiling during normal operation ar'd anticipated operational occurrence and are acceptable.
I 2.3 Revision to Thermal Limit Descriotions The current Technical Specification 3.2.1 specifim M APLHGR limit as a function of thc average planar exposure. However, the resuMt. of SPC'n appraved loss-of-coolant accident
o=,
r I
4 J
i
}
(LOCA) methodology may be applied on either a bundle average or average planar exposure.
E Thus, the licensee proposed a less stringent description of APLHGR by deleting the reference
}
to the average planar exposure from TS 3.2.1. This would allow the APLHGR limits to be j.
based on either bundle average or average planar exposure. The detailed information to which the APLHGR is monitored will be specified in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). This generalization of the definition of APLHGR is consistent with the improved Standard Technical Specification (NUREG 1433/1434, Revision 1) wording. Both maximum APLHGRs (bundle l
average exposure based and planar average exposure based) are acceptable for 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix K. Therefore, the change to TS 3.2.1 is acceptable.
j The licensee also proposes deleting the definition of Average Planar Exposer from the TS j
Section 1.0
- Definitions." This change would allow the most suitablo method to be utilized as specified in the COLR and will establish consistency in TS wording. This item is also removed from the table of contents. These changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Illinois State officiEl was notified of the
)
proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change 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. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 i
no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 59588). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). This amendment also relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting or administrative procedges or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendments meet the oligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement i
or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
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 activities will be conducted in compliance with the
- Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
]
Principal Contributor: M. Chattnton Date: March 16,1999
[