ML20217G687
| ML20217G687 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217G680 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710140157 | |
| Download: ML20217G687 (3) | |
Text
easag y*
k, UNITED STATES a
y NUCLEAR REEULATCRY C2MMISSIEN WASHINGTON, D.C. 30046-4001
\\*<.,,**,/j-SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 99 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 l
ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
RIVER BEND STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-458
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 5, 1997, Entergy Operations, Inc. (E01),
thelicensee) proposed changes to the Technical 5)ecifications (TSs) (Ap)endix(A to facility Operating License No. NPF-47) for tie River Bend Station (185), Unit 1.
The proposed changes include the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits based on the cycle-specific analysis for the Cycle 8 mixed core of (General Electric) Gell /GE0B fuel parameters.
By letter dated August 15, 1997, the licensee provided additional clarification information.
This additional information did not change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested a change to the RBS, Unit 1 Cycle 8 (RBSIC8) TSs in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90.
The proposed revision of TS 2.1.1.2 is described below.
The Safety Limit MCPR (SLMCPR) in TS 2.1.1.2 is proposed to change to 1 1.13 for two recirculation loop operation and 1 1.14 for single recirculation loop operation when the reactor steam dome pressure is 1785 psig and core flow 2 10% rated core flow. The cycle-specific parameters were used including the actual core loading, the actual bundle parameters, and the full-cycle exposure range.
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes which are based on the analyses performed using RBSIC8 cycle-specific inputs and approved methodologies, including GESTAR II (NEDE-240ll-P-A-13, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5) and its reference, NED0-10985-A, January 1977, and found them acceptable. A revised R-factor methodology described in NEDC-32505P, "R-Factor Calculation Method for Gell, GE12 and GE13 Fuel," November 1995, and referenced in NEDE-240ll-P-A-13 was used for this analysis. The revised R-factor calculation method uses the same Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved equation t+.ted in GESTAR (NEDE-240ll-P-A) except adding the correction factors and substituting rod-integrated powers for the lattice peaking factors to account for the effects of the ) art-length-rod design.
The staff has reviewed the R-factor calculation metiod for Gell, and the relevant information provided in the 9710140157 971000 PDR ADOCK 05000458 P
0
. proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11, NEDE-240ll (which is under the staff review), and found that use of the R-factor calculation method in conjunction with the approved methodology listed in TS 5.6.5 is acceptable for this application and will ensure that 99.9% fuel rods in the core will not experience the boiling transition.
The staff has found that the justification for analyzing and determining the SLHCPR of 1.13 for two recirculation loop operation and 1.14 for single loop operation for the RBSIC8 is acceptable, since (1) the RBSlC8 is not an equilibrium core; (2) RBSIC8 has a much flatter radial power distribution and flatter pin-by-pin R-factor distribution than that was used to 3erform the Gell generic SLHCPR evaluation; and [3) RBSIC8 is loaded with a higier batch fraction and a higher average batch wesght percent enrichment.
1 Based on our review, we conclude that the changes to the TSs 2.1.1.2 are acceptable for the RBSIC8 application since the changes are analyzed based on the NRC-approveri method and conservative cycle-specific
)arameters for SLHCPR analysis are used. A footnote to the specification has seen added to indicate that the SLHCPRs are applicable only for Cycle 8 operation.
By letter dated August 15, 1997, the licensee agreed to the additions to the Safety Limit MCPR (TS 2.1.1.2) and to the Core Operating Limits Report (TS 5.6.5) that adds a footnote to each section to define the Cycle 8 applicability and the approved use of the R-factor methodoloay, as stated in this Safety Evaluation, for calculating MCPRs applicable to Cycle 8.
The addition of this method will ensure that values for cycle specific pa ameters are determined such that all applicable limits of the safety analysis (e.g.,
nuclear limits, transient analysis limits and accident analysis limits) are met. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Louisiana State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to 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 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 Comission has preciously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (62 FR 45456).
The amendment also enanges record keeping or reporting requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFP.
51.22(c)(9) and (c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impr.ct statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
3-
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safet pubite will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,y of the activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's reg (2) such
- ulations, 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 D. Wigg1nton Date:
October 8, 1997 e
e
- - emue - a w w nom,.w em ms e m4 + g - +...
e~a
,..+..a w-.
,,..4
.n
.