ML20205D692
| ML20205D692 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205D690 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904020278 | |
| Download: ML20205D692 (3) | |
Text
..
c f ***y p
1 UNITED STATES
,5 S
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% * * * * * /[
'g wAsMiNoTom, o.c. sosewoot SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.104 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO, 50-440 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 27,1998, the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the license,
proposed changes to the current Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP). The proposed changes would modify the existing Minimum Critical Power Ratio -
(MCPR) Safety Limit contained in TS 2.1.1.2. Specifically, the change would apply additional conservatism by modifying the MCPR Safety Limit values, as calculated by General Electric (GE), by maintaining the limit of 1.09 for two recirculation loop operation and by increasing the limit from 1.10 to 1.11 for single recirculation loop operation.
In addition to the proposed changes to the MCPR Safety Limit, the proposed amendment removes a note to TS 2.1.1.2 and a footnote to TS 5.6.5.b that references MCPR Safety Limit j
values as cycle-specific. The removal of these notes will aved the review and approval of I
subsequent license amendments when the MCPR Safety Limit does not require modification.
2.0 EVALUATION GE Nuclear Energy (GENE) has submitted topical reports for staff review and approval as references in license applications for the determination of MCPR Safety Limits. Specifically, these topical repods include (1) the description of the procedures used to account for the reload-specific core design and operation in determining the cycle specific MCPR Safety Limit in NEDC-32601P; (2) the power distribution uncertainty for the new GE 3D-MONICORE core surveillance system in NEDC-32694P; and (3) the methodology and uncertainties required for the implementation of cycle-specific MCPR Safety Limits in Amendment 25 to NEDE-24011-P-A.
3 By letter dated March 11,1999, from Frank Akstulewicz, NRC, to Glen Watford, GE, the staff found the topical reports to be acceptable for referencing in license applications.
2.1 TS 2.1.1.2 The licensee does not propose to change the MCPR Safety Limit of 1.09 for two recirculation loop operation but proposes to change the value for single recirculation loop operation from 1.10 9904020278 990326 PDR ADOCK 0500tM40 b
P PDR
-2 to 1.11 when the reactor steam dome pressure is a 785 psig and core flow a 10% rated core flow. The licensee also proposes to remove the note to TS 2.1.1.2, "only applicable for Cycle 7 operation."
The MCPR Safety Limit analysis for the Perry facility was performed by GENE using the plant-and cycle-specific fuel and core parameters, NRC approved methodologies including GESTAR-ll (NEDE-24011-P-A, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5), NEDO-10958-A, January 1977 and Amendment 25 to NEDE-24011-P-A. Amendment 25 to NEDE-24011-P-A provides the cycle-specific MCPR Safety Limits that replace the former generic, bounding values.
The staff has reviewed the following: (1) the justification for the MCPR Safety Limit value of 1.09 for two recirculation loop operation and 1.11 for single loop operation, (2) the relevant information provided in Amendment 25 to GESTAR-II, NEDE-24011, and (3) the relevant information provided in NEDC-32601which was cited in the February 4,1999, conference call with the licensee and GENE as the basis for the rounding technique used for the SLMCPR calculation.
Based on our review of the submittal and the relevant portions of the topical reports, the staff
'I has concluded that the MCPR Safety Limit analysis for PNPP using the plant-and cycle-specific calculation in conjunction with the approved method is acceptable for PNPP. The MCPR Safety Limit will ensure that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not experience boiling transition which satisfies the requirements of General Design Criterion 10 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 regarding acceptable fuel design limits. Therefore, the staff has concluded that the justification for analyzing and determining the SLMCPR value of 1.09 for two loop and 1.11 for single loop operation is acceptable since approved methodologies were used. The proposed removal of a cycle-specific footnote is also acceptable since the analysis is already performed I
using plant-and cycle-specific parameters and the procedures specified in Amendment 25 to GESTAR-il, NEDE-24011-P-A, which is an approved methodology that is acceptable for use at Perry for this and future cycles.
i 2.2 TS 5.6.5.b.
The proposed TS change is to eliminate the asterisk at the end of the sentence 5.6.5.b and to remove the footnote at the bottom of the same page, Page 5.0-18, which reads, "For Cycle 7, as approved in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report dated November 7,1997." By letter dated March 11,1999, from Frank Akstulewicz, NRC, to Glen Watford, GE, the staff approved the methodology in Amendment 25 to GESTAR-ll, NEDE-24011-P-A, which includes cycle-specific analysis for the MCPR Safety Limit. Therefore, the proposed removal of the asterisk and the cycle specific footnote is acceptable since use of the approved methodology will ensure that j
values for cycle specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits of the plant safety analysis are met.
3.0 '
STATE QQl.tSMLTATION In accordance w'th the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
i 1
3-
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes a requirement witi' respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area is defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant
' increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 66603). 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)(g) and (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 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance tnat 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 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: March 26, 1999
_