ML20205G378
| ML20205G378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/09/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205G375 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904070230 | |
| Download: ML20205G378 (4) | |
Text
,
o i
- "00g l*,.
UNITED STATES g-g
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 25 of SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.117 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 i
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 25,1998, as supplemented January 27,1999, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G or the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), Technical Specifications (TSs). The proposed amendment would revise TS 2.1.2, " THERMAL POWER, High Pressure and High Flow," and the Bases for TS 21, " Safety Limits." These changes are being made to implement appropriately consen,ative Safety Umit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) values for the HCGS Cycle 9 core and fuel designs. An administrative change would also be made to TS 6.9.1.9 to reflect the proposed changos for Cycle 9. The January 27,1999, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 BACKGROUND
As discussed in Section 3.1.2.2.1 of the HCGS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report and Section 4.4 of the Hope Creek Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1048), the tNrmal and hydraulic design of the reactor core conforms to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria (GDC) 10. This GDC states that the reactor core and associated coolant, control, and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences.
The SLMCPR is a specified acceptable fuel design limit as defined by GDC 10. As described in the Bases for TS 2.1.2, the SLMCPR is set to ensure that no fuel damage is calculated to occur if the limit is not violated. The SLMCPR defines the minimum allowable critical power ratio at which 99.9% of the rods in the core are expected to avoid boiling transition considering the power distribution within the core and all uncertainties.
The SLMCPR is determined using a statis tical model that combines all of the uncertainties in operating parameters and in the procede ces used to calculate critical power. The SLMCPR is determined for each fuel design under the conditions specified by General Electric (GE) topical report NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
(GESTAR ll).
9904070230 990309 PDR ADOCK 05000354 P
pm e
a e !
As discussed in a 10 CFR Part 21 notification by GE dated May 24,1996, it was reported that the GESTAR ll generic fuel product line calculated SLMCPR may be non-conservative when applied to some actual core and fuel designs. As a result of the issues discussed in the 10 CFR Part 21 notification, PSE&G issued Licensee Event Report (LER) 96-014-00 dated May 14,1996, as supplemented by LER 96-014-01, dated September 30,1996, to document the issue for HCGS. In a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated October 9,
' 1996, GE committed to discontinue the practice of specifying the SLMCPR based on a bounding calculation for a given fuel product line (e.g., GE98). Since that time, GE has calculated revised plant-specific SLMCPR values for HCGS Cycles 7,8, and 9 as part of the
)
reload licensing analyses. The proposed amendment provides the revised SLMCPR values based on the GE analyses for HCGS Cycle 9. The Cycle 9 SLMCPR values are based on a full core of 764 GE98 fuel assemblies, of which there are 196 fresh bundles,236 once bumt bundlet,232 twice bumt bundles,72 thrice bumt bundles, and 28 bundles bumed 4 cycles.
3.0 EVALUATION 3.1 Evaluation of Proposed Changes to TS 2.1.2 The licensee has proposed to change the SLMCPR values in TS 2.1.2 for Cycle 9 from 1.10 to 1.09 for two recirculation loop operation and from 1.12 to 1.11 for single recirculation loop operation. These values are for reactor pressure greater than 785 psig and core flow greater
{
than 10% of rated flow. In addition, the footnote to TS 2.1.2 would be changed to reflect that ths values are applicable to Cycle 9 operation only.
The licensee described the methodology used to calculate the new SLMCPR values for the TSs in the submittal. The Cycle 9 SLMCPR analysis was performed by GE using the plant-and cycle-specific fuel and core parameters, NRC-approved methodologies including GESTAR 11 (NEDE-24011-P-A-11, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5) and the proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11. The proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11 provides cycle-specific analysis for j
the SLMCPR that replaces the former generic, bounding SLMCPR analysis, j
The staff has reviewed the following: (1) the justification for the SLMCPR value of 1.09 for the two recirculation loop operation and 1.11 for single recirculation loop operation for Cycle 9, and (2) the relevant information provided in the proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR ll (NEDE-24011-P-A), which is currently under staff review (reference TAC No. V97491).
q Based on our review, the t'aff has concluded that the Cycle 9 SLMCPR analysis for i
HCGS using the plant-specific calcu!ation in conjunction with the approved method is i
acceptable. - The Cycle 9 SLMCPR will ensure that 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core will not experience boiling transition which satisfies the requirements of GDC 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 recirculation loop operation and 1.11 for single recirculation loop operation for HCGS Cycle 9 operation is acceptable since approved methodologies were used. The proposed change to the footnote to TS 2.1.2 is also acceptable to reflect the applicability of the proposed TS change to the upcoming Cycle 9 operation,'or HCGS.
l
n --
I '
l 4 '
l.
l l
3.2 Evaluation of Proposed Changes to TS 6.9.1.9 The proposed change to TS 6.9.1.9 includes a note marked with an asterisk to identify that the l
analytical methods evaluated in this Safety Evaluation are approved for Cycle 9 for determining the cycle-specific parameters. The TSs currently state that the latest approved revision of NEDE-24011-P-A may be used. The staff has reviewed the methodology proposed in
' Amendment 25 to GESTAR ll (NEDE-24011-P-A), which includes cycle-specific analysis for the SLMCPR. This analytical method for determining cycle-specific limits will ensure that applicable j
MCPR safety limits of the safety analysis for HCGS Cycle 9 operation are met. The methods specified in the latest approved version of GESTAR 11, as supplemented by the relevant information in Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11, is acceptable for use in determining the HCGS l
Cycle 9 SLMCPR values. Therefore, the proposed change to TS 6.9.1.9 is acceptable.
l However, the staff notes that this footnote will not be needed after Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11 l
Is approved by the NRC.
3.3 Evaluation of Proposed Changes to Bases for TS 2.1 l
The proposed changes to the Bases are acceptable since they reflect the new 1.03 MCPR limit for two recirculation loop operation and the 1.11 MCPR limit for single recirculation loop l
operation based on approved methodologies.
i l
3.4 Summary J
Based on our review, the staff concludes that the above described TS changes are acceptable l
for HCGS Cycle 9 operation because the changes were analyzed based on the NRC-approved methods using HCGS cycle-specific inputs including the specific fuel bundle design for Cycle 9 operation.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located wdhin the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has 3
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 icsued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no i
significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding j
(63 FR 50938). The amendment also relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requiraraents. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) 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 the amendment.
A
p" o
e
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 l
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 Contributors: T. Huang i
R. Ennis Date: March 9, 1999 l
l L