ML20217Q510
| ML20217Q510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217Q498 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9805080145 | |
| Download: ML20217Q510 (4) | |
Text
94 g
i UNITED STATES
_g
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON D.C. 20066 0001
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.127 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-39 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-352
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter (Reference 1) dated February 9,1998, as supplemented by letters dated Ap;il 8 and 24, 1998 (References 2 and 3), Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO, the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Unit 1.
The proposed changes include the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits for the Cycle 8 operation which has 256 fresh GE13,80 fresh Shoreham GE6 (reused channels),284 once bumed GE13,32 once burned GE6 (new channels), and 112 twice bumed GE11 fuel -
bundles. The April 8 and 24,1998, letters provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION i
The licensee requested TS changes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 for Limerick Unit 1 Cycle 8 I
reload. The revised specifications were proposed as follows:
2.1 TS 2.1 The safety limit MCPR (SLMCPR) values in TS 2.1.2 are proposed to change from 1.09 to 1.12 for operation with two recirculation loops and to change from 1.11 to 1.14 for single recirculation loop operation (SLO) with the reactor vessel steam dome pressure greater than 785 psig and core flow greater than 10% of rated flow.
For the Cycle 8 SLMCPR analysis, including the cycle-specific parameters, Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission (NRC) approved methodologies including GESTAR-il (NEDE-24011-P-A-13, Sections 1.15 and 1.2.5), and a revised R factor methodology described in NEDE-32505P, "R-Factor Calculation Method for GE11, GE12 and GE13 Fuel," November 1995 were used. The revised R-factor calculation method uses the same NRC-approved equation stated in GESTAR (NEDE-24011-P-A-13) except for adding the correction factors and substituting rod-integrated powers for the lattice peaking factors to account for the effects of the part-length-rod design.
The cycle-specific parameters include the actual core loading, conservative variations of projected control blade pattems, the actual bundle parameters (e.g., local peaking) and the full cycle exposure range.
9805000145 980504 PDR ADOCK 05000352 P
e.
'i The staff has reviewed the following supporting information: (1) the response to the staffs Request for Additional Information (RAI) for any impact on the SLMCPR analysis due to the reused and non-roused channels for Shoreham GE6 fuel (Reference 2); (2) the R-factor calculation Method for GE11 and GE13 Fuel; and (3) the relevant information provided in the proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11, NEDE-24011 (which is under the staff review).
Based on our review, the staff has found that the Cycle 8 SLMCPR analysis using a revised R-factor calculation method in conjunction with the approved m6thodologies is acceptable and will ensure that 99.9% fuel rods in the core will not experience the boiling transition to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. Therefore, the staff has concluded that the justification for analyzing and determining the SLMCPR of 1.12 for two recirculation loop operation and 1.14 for single loop operation for the Limerick, Unit 1 Cycle 8 is acceptable. A footnote was added to TS page 618a to reflect the approved revision of NEDE-24011-P-A as modified by the revised R-factor methodology. This change clarifies the acceptable methodology and ensures that values of cycle-specific parameters are determined such that all applicable limits of the plant safety analysis are met.
2.2 Bases 2.0 The proposed changes in Bases 2.0 include: (1) to change the SLMCPR values; and (2) to add a sentence, "The MCPR values for both dual-loop and single loop operation, listed above, are valid only for Cycle 8 operation." The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and found them acceptable since the changes are to reflect the applicability to the Cyde 8 operation based on the results of the cycle-specific analysis.
Based on our review, we conclude that the changes to these Specifications and its associated Bases are acceptable for LGS Unit 1 Cycle 8 reload application since the changes are analyzed based on the NRCrapproved method.
3.0
SUMMARY
Based on our evaluation of the licensee's submittals, we find the proposed revisions to the LGS, Unit 1 TS acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania 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 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 Commission has previously issued I
1 i
I 3-I a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there L
has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 9613). The amendment also relates to l
changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR l
51.22(c){9) and (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 the amendment.
l
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is l
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: T. Huang B. Buckley Date: May 4, 1998 l
l
h.
4 i
7.0 REFERENCES
- 1. Letter from G. D. Edwards, PECO Energy Company, to U.S. NRC, " Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Technical Speci5 cations Change Request No. 97-03-1," dated February 9, 1998.
- 2. Letter from to G. D. Edwards, PECO Energy Company, to U.S. NRC, " Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Supplementary Clarifying information, Technical Specification Change Request No. 97-03-1," dated April 8,1998.
- 3. Letter from G. D. Edwards, PECO Energy Company, to U.S. NRC, " Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Request for Supplemental Technical Specifications Page, Technical Specifications Change Request No. 97-03-1," dated April 24,1998.
.