ML20236B093
| ML20236B093 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B021 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710230334 | |
| Download: ML20236B093 (5) | |
Text
-
DM #f 0g UNITED STATES
[
h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^E rn WASHIN( TON. 0, C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-47 i
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY RIVER BEND STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET N0. 50-458 l.0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 14, 1987, Gulf States Utilities Company (GSU) (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 for the River Bend Station, Unit 1.
The proposed amendment would amend the Technical Specifications for the Cycle 2 reload and operation (Refs. 1
& 2).
The reload includes 164 new assemblies of GE manufacture.
The reload design has no unusual features.
The proposed Technical Saecifica-tion changes are related to the Minimuia Critical Power Ratio (MC)R), the MaximumAveragePlanarLinearHeatGenerationRate(MAPLHGR)andupdating and generalizing the bases and references associated with certain cycle dependent limits.
The new fuel is of slightly increased enrichment designed for extended burnup.
The licensee provided plant-specific information used to determine reactor limits in a July 31, 1987 submittal (Ref. 2) that was referenced in the August 14, 1987 amendment application.
Supplemental information clarifying the description of the new fuel for cycle 2 was provided in a September 18, 1987 submittal (Ref. 4).
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Reload Description The licensee requests to be allowed to use GE fuel ty)es BP85RB299 and BP8 SRB 305 which have slightly higher enrichment tlan the present fuel types and will allow higher burnup.
The core loading is the conventional new assembly scatter pattern, with low reactivity (old) assemblies located on the periphery.
The new assembly types are not described in GESTAR II (Ref. 3).
1 2.2 Fuel Design The new fuel for C cle 2 is the GE fuel designated BP85RB299 and BP85RB305.
This f el is in the same class with approved designs but not for the enrichments used here.
The specific description of this I
fuel is presented in Reference 4.
This fuel description is acceptable.
I
$$U$83CK05000450 34 071o19 P
i '
For Cycle 2 operation, ap3ropriate Maximum Average Planar Linear i
HeatGenerationRates(MA)LHGR)havebeendeterminedbyapproved t
thermal mechanical and Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) analyses calculations.
The most limiting MAPLHGR as a function of burnup for l
the new core loading are presented in the proposed Technical Specifications (Ref. 1) for the old and the new fuel types present in Cycle 2.
2.3 Nuclear Design l
The nuclear design for Cycle 2 has been performed by GE using the approved GESTAR II methodology (Ref. 3).
The results of these i
analyses are given in the GE reload report (Ref. 2) in the GESTAR II format. The results are within the acce) table reload range.
The shutdown margin is 2.7% Ak at BOC with tie strongest rod out and 1.2%
osure with the minimum shutdown margin.
Both meet the Ak at the exp% Ak margin required by the Technical Specifications.
required 0.38 The standby liquid control system also meets the shutdown requirements with a shutdown margin of 4.0% Ak.
Because these and other nuclear characteristics of the reload have been computed with previously a3provedmethods(outlinedinGESTARII)andtheirvaluesarewithin j
tie allowed range, the nuclear design is acceptable.
2.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Design The thermal-hydraulic design for Cycle-2 has been calculated using the approved methods described in GESTAR II.
The results are given parameters and initial values used for the calculations (Ref. 2).
in the standard GESTAR II format in the reload report The are those approved in GESTAR II for the BWR/6 class of reactors.
The GEMINI set of methods (References 5 and 6) have been a) proved for the relevant transient analyses.
In this method, tie difference between the analyses and Technical Specification values of the scram speed is not taken into account.
Only the Technical Specification values are used.
j The operating limit of the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) values are determined by the limiting transient among the following:
local rod withdrawal error, feedwater controller failure, load rejection without bypass and loss of 100 F feedwater heating.
The analyses of these events for Cycle 2 used approved methods.
The loss of 100 F feedwater heating and the local rod withdrawal transient are limiting.
l The ACPR results of these analyses are reflected in the requested Technical Specification changes.
The MCPR for Cycle 2 has been l
increased from 1.06 to 1.07 to account for Cycle 2 uncertainties.
This value has been approved in the FSAR.
For the analyses of the above transients, approved methods have been used.
The results are 1
within expected ranges and, hence, they are acceptable.
For the River Bend Cycle 2, no cycle specific stability analysis is i
i required because the Technical Specifications have standard NRC i
I 1
[.-
l L
{ )
l l
a proved provisions for incore neutron detector monitoring of thermal-
)
h draulic stability according to the. recommendations of the General i
E ectric SIL-380.
l 2.5 Transient and Accident Analyses The accident and transient analysis methods used for Cycle 2 are described in GESTAR II.
The GEMINI set of codes was used.
The MCPR
-l operating limit was determined from the rod withdrawal error transient ACPR=0.11 added to the MCPR of 1.07 for a cycle operating MCPR limit of 1.18.
The core wide transient analysis methodologies have been i
approved and the results fall within expected ranges and are acceptable.
The mislocated assembly event is not analyzed for reloads because studies indicated that there is a very small probability of an event l
exceeding the MCPR limits.
The assembly disorientation event is not analyzed due to the symmetric water gap in type C lattices.
This is
)
acceptable.
1
-The limiting overaressurization event analysis,ing the GEMINI methods i.e., main isolation valve closure wita flux scram, was performed us (Refs. 5 and 6) at 102% of )ower level to account for the power level uncertainties specified in Regulatory Guide 1.49.
The results show that the peak steam dome and vessel pressures of 1,210 and 1 247 psig to be under 1325 psig i.e., the required limit in the Technical Specifications.
The methodology and the results of the overpressure-ization event analysis are acceptable (Ref. 2).
LossofCoolantAccident(LOCA) analyses,usingapproved(SAFE /REFLOOD) methods and parameter values were performed to provide MAPLHGR values vs average planar exposure, peak clad temperature and oxidation fraction for both new fuel ty3e assemblies for Cycle 2, i.e, BP8 SRB 299 and BP85RB305.
The results s W com)liance with 10 CFR 50.46, and the LHGR limit of 13.4 kW/ft. and, t1erefore, are acceptable.
2.6 Selected Margin Improvement and Operating Flexibility Options River Bend has the following options:
Recirculation Pump Trip Rod Withdrawal Limiter Thermal Power Monitor Single Loo) Operation Feedwater leater Out-of-Service These options have been generically reviewed and approved.
1 y 2.7 Proposed Technical Specification Changes L
The following Technical Specifications are proposed to be changed:
1.
2.1.2, Thermal' Power, High Pressure and High. Flow. The MCPR has been increased in the Technical Specification and the bases 2.1.2.
Tables 82.1.2-1 and B2.1.2-2.
These changes are accep-i table as discussed in the evaluation.
2.
3/4 2.1, Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate.
Modification of.the MAPLHGR vs average exposure for each fuel type in Cycle j
2.
Figures 3.2.1-2 to 3.2.1-6 and bases 3/4 1.3 and 3/4 2.1 to 1
3/4 2.4.
These changes have been discussed above and are acceptable.
l 3.0
SUMMARY
I The NRC staff has reviewed the information submitted for the Cycle 2
)
ooeration of the River Bend reactor.
Based on this review, the staff c'ncludes that the feel design, the nuclear design, the thermal hydraulic o
design and the accident and transient analyses are acceptable.
The l
proposed Technical Specifications submitted for the Cycle 2 reload repre-sent the necessary modifications for this cycle and they are acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the L
installation or use of a facility com)onent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
Tie staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts and no signifi-cant change in the types,ificant increase in individual or cumulativeo and that there is no sign 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.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement nor 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 that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2)suchactivitieswillbeconductedincompliancewiththeCommission's regulations and the. issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The staff therefore concludes that the aroposed changes are acceptable, and they are hereby incorporated into tie River Bend Unit 1 Technical Specifications.
l j
l
+
l :\\
6.0 REFERENCES
L 1.
Letter from J; C.fDeddens, Gulf States Utilities Company, to USNRC, dated August 14, 1987.
2.'
"Su)plemental Reload Licensing Submittal for River Bend Station Reload 1"
]
GE Report 23A5819, dated July 1987.
- 3. -
NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,"
l GESTAR II, as amended, dated May 1986.
l 4.
Letter from J. E. Booker, Gulf States Utilities Company, to'USNRC, dated 1
September 18,ing Submittal for River Bend Station Reload 1."pplemental 1987 and GE Report 23A5819 " Supplement 1 to Su 4
4 Reload Licens
- 5., Letter from J. S. Charnley, General Electric, to M. W. Hodges, NRC, dated July 6, 1987.
l 1
6.
Letter from G..C. Lainas to J. S. Charnley, General Electric, " Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, GE Generic
.n Licensing Reload Report, Supplement to Amendment 11," March 22, 1986.
j Principal Contributor:
L. Lois l
I
. Dated: October 19, 1987 i
l i
l 1
I
___J