ML20245J139
| ML20245J139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245J137 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905040010 | |
| Download: ML20245J139 (7) | |
Text
c
.]
p S-I p Kao
((
0,j UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'5
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s.,.....)
i.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 20 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-58 THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.
PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-440
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated November 28, 1988 ene December 29, 1988, the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Conipany, the licensee for the Perry Unit 1 Nuclear Generating Station, proposed to amend the Technical Specifications for the Cycle 2 reload and operation (Refs. 1, 2 and 7). The reload includes 272 new assemblies of GE manufacture. The reload design has no unusual features. The proposed Technical SpecificationchangesarerelatedtotheMinimumCriticalPowerRatio(MCPR),
the Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR), and updating the bases and references associated with certain cycle-dependent limits. The December 29, 1988 submittal also proposed TS changes to specify values for flow-dependent MAPLHGR factor (MAPFAC.) and MCPR for off-rated conditions of operation. The new fuel is of slightly increaseb enrichment designed for extended burnup.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Reload Description The licensee requests to be allowed to use GE fuel types BS301E and BS301F which have slightly higher enrichment than 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).
2.2 Fuel Design The new fuel for Cycle 2 is the GE fuel designated BS301E and BS301F. This fuel is in the same class with approved designs but not for the enrichments used here. The specific description of this fuel is presented in Reference 4.
This fuel description is acceptable.
For Cycle 2 operation, appropriate MAPLHGR have been determined by approved thernal, mechanical and Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) analyses calculations.
1 The most limiting MAPLHGR's 6s e function of burnup for the new core loading arepresentedintheproposedTechnicalSpecifications(Ref.1)fortheoldand the new fuel types present in Cycle 2.
8905040010 890426 FDR ADOCK 05000440 i
P PDC
]
. 2.3 Nuclear Design l
The nuclear design for Cycle 2 has been performed by GE using the approved (Ref. 3).
GESTAR II methodology (Ref. 2) in the GESTAR II format.1he results of these analyse the GE reload report The results are within the usual reload range. The shutdown margin is 2.9% delta-k/k at beginning of cycle (B0C) with the strongest rod out and 1.2% delta-k/k at the exposure with the minimum shutdown ;nargin. Both meet the 0.38% delta-k/k margin required by the Technical Specifications. The standby liquid control system also meets the shutdown requirements with a shutdown margin of 4.0% delta-k/k. Because these and other nuclear characteristics of the reload have been computed with previously-approved methods (outlined in GESTAR II) and their values are within the allowed range, the nuclear design is acceptable.
2.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Design The thermal-hydraulic design for Cycle 2 has been cdiculated using the approved methods described in GESTAR II. The results are given in the standard GESTAR 11 format in the reload report (Ref. 2). The parameters and initial values used for the calculations are those approved in GESTAR II for the BWR/6 class of reactors. The GEMINI set of methods (Refs. 5 and 6) have been approved for the relevant transient analyses. The Technical Specification values for scram speed, which are conservative, were used.
The operating limits of the 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 transient is limiting. The delta-CPR results of these anclyses are reflected in the requested Technical Specification changes. The MCPR for Cycle i
2 has been increased from 1.06 to 1.07 to account for Cycle 2 uncertainties.
The results are within expected ranges and, hence, they are acceptable.
For the Perry Unit 1, Cycle 2, no cycle-specific stability analysis is required j
because the Technical Specifications have standard NRC-approved provisions for incore neutron detector monitoring of thermal-hydraulic stability according to the recommendations of the General Electric SIL-380. Nevertheless, effective j
December 1, 1988, the licensee instituted procedures for the instance of loss J
of one or both recirculation pumps to prevent the reactor from entering an unstable mode of operation. This is responsive to Bulletin 88-07 and thus is acceptable.
i
I'.
. 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 operating limit was determined from the loss of.100'F feedwater heating transient, delta-CPR = 0.11 added to the MCPR of 1.07 for a cycle operating MCPR limit of 1.18. The core-wide transient analyses methodologies have been approved and the results fall within expected ranges and are acceptable.
The mislocated assembly event is not analyzed, because the NRC approved the non-applicability of loacing errors to BWR/6 plants as documented in Ref. 3.
The limiting overpressurization event analysis, i.e., main isolation valve closurewithfluxscram,wasperformedusingtheGEMINImethoos(Ref.5and6) at 102% of power level to account for the power -level uncertainties specified in Regulatory Guide 1.49.
The results show thht the peak steam dome and
. vessel pressures of 1,235 and 1,266 psig are under 1375 psig, i.e., the e
required limit. The methodology and the results of the overpressurization event analysis are acceptable (Ref. 2).
LOCA analyses, using approved (SAFE /REFLOOD) methods and parameter values were performed to provide MAPLHGR values versus average planar exposure, peak clad temperature and oxidation fraction for both.new fuel _ type assemblies for Cycle 2, i.e., BS301E and BS301F. The results show compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 and the LHGR limits as listed in the Technical Specifications and,' therefore, are acceptable.
2.6 Selected Margin Improvement and Operating Flexibility Options The licensee has included in its reload analyses several assumptions regarding equipment inoperability which will allow operating flexibility. Equipment not credited in the analyses include recirculation pump trip, rod withdrawal limiter, and the thermal power monitor.
In addition, the licensee has considered in its determination of operating limits and technical specifications the effects of feedwater heaters being out of service, single loop operation, maximum extenced operating domain conditions, and increased core flow. These options; have been approved on a generic basis and have been demonstrated as applicable to Perry in its reload submittal. The staff will evaluate technical specifi-cation changes related to single loop operation when they are submitted at a later date.
'2.7 Evaluation of Changes to MCPR and MAPFAC Values f
f During off-rated power-flow operation, MCPR, values of MCPR are required to ensure that the established safety limit value is met during inadvertent core flow increase. The MCPR,were calculated as a function of flow.
For each value of the flow the likiting bundle's relative power is adjusted until the MCPR is slightly above the safety limit MCPR.
In this manner a power-flow line is defined to assure that the safety limit will be tet.
i e,;
lt :
, The revision of these curves for Cycle 2 was necessitated by the non-conserva-i tive behavior at low flows of the GEXL-Plus critical power correlation used _in
)
.the ana.ysis of Cycle 2.
The staff requires additional conservatism for flows below 40% of the rated flow (GESTAR, Amendment 15 Ref. 8). This conservatism is given in the form of a flow-dependent factor, MAPFAC and the value of the-3.2.2-1whicharep$r..Thesequantitiesarespecifiedi,hFigures3.2.1-1and flow dependent MCPR t of the proposed Technical Specifications. These curves have been extended to 20% of rated core flow to cover potential core flow shortfall.
As pointed out above, the calculational methodology was based on GEXL-Plus and an NRC-approved code. The calculational results assure that the safety limit MCPR is met, therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes are acceptable.
2.8 Proposed Technical Specification Changes ThefollowingTechnicalSpecifications(andcorrespondingbases)areproposed 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.
Tables B2.1.2-1 and B2.1.2-2 are eliminated. These changes are acceptable as discussed in the evaluation.
2.
3/4.2.1, Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate Modification of the MAPLHGR versus average exposure for each fuel type in Cycle 2.
Figures 3.2.1-1, 3.2.1-2, 3.2.1-4 and 3.2.1-5 were renumbered, Figure 3.2.1-3 was deleted.
Figures 3.F.1-5 and 3.2.1-6 were added.
These changes have been discussed above and are acceptable. Also, as discussed above, the new Figure 3.2.1-1 was modified to extend the curve to the 20% of rated core flow line. This change is acceptable.
3.
3/4.2.2, Minimum Critical Power Ratio Changes in Figure 3.2.2-2 as discussed above reflect the revised MCPR.
The changes are acceptable.
4.
3/4.2.3, Linear Heat Generation Rate Changes to reflect explicitly the linear heat generation limits for all assemblies present in Cycle 2.
This change is acceptable as discussed in the evaluation.
y
.. > o l
! i 5.
' Figure 3.2.2-1 has been revised for the flow dependent minimum critical power ration, MCPR, to correct the extrapolated value for Cycle 2 operation. Asdisbussedabove,thischangeisacceptable.
3.0
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSGriS We have reviewed the information submitted for the Cycle 2 operation of the Perry Unit 1 plant. Based on this review, we conclude that the fuel design, the nuclear design, the thermal-hydraulic design and the accident and transient analyses are acceptable. The proposed Technical Specifications submitted for the Cycle 2 reloac represent the necessary modifications for this cycle.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
t This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-lation or. use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The 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 inoividual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Connission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.2E(b), no environmental im>act statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with t1e issuance of this amendment.
Comments were ret.eived dated February 22, 1988 with respect to the proposed issuance of this amendment and are addressed below.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMEllTS RECEIVED On February 22, 1989 Susan L. Hiatt, representing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy.(OCRE), submitted comments with regard to the licensees' license amend-ment application dated November 28, 1988 as amended December 29, 1988.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance had been published in the Federal Reaister on February 1,1989. Ms. Hiatt stated that the amendment request is deficient in that a stability cr.alysis had not been conducted by the licensees. She further stated that the licensees should be required to conduct a stability analysis for the second operating cycle demonstrating compliance with GDC-10 and -12 as a conoition of restart. Ms. Hiatt identified her concerns as being related to the La Salle Unit 2 power oscillation event of March 9, 1988. The staff has evaluated Ms. Hiatt's comments and provides the following discussion.
Following the March 9, 1988 power oscillation event at La Salle Unit 2, the staff issued NRC Bulletin 88-07
" Power Oscillations in Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's)" and Supplement I to that bulletin on June 22, 1988 and December 30, 1988, respectively. The bulletin states a modified staff position wherein stability analyses are no longer acceptable for demonstrating that a BWR core is stable.
Instead, the staff requested that explicit modifications to operating procedures be implemented by licensees in order to ensure that power
m L :s f "o.
1 oscillations are avoided or promptly detected and suppressed. The General j
Electric (GE)SIL-380guidanceregardingoperatingprocedureswasmodifiedby j
the BWR Owners Group.. The changes were further modified and endorsed by Supplement 1 to NRC Bulletin 88-07. By letter dated February 15, 1989, the
. licensees confirmed that actions requested in NRC Bulletin 88-07 Supplement I have been completed and implemented. Therefore, the staff has determined that
'the licensees have taken appropriate measures to avoid, detect and suppress power oscillations for Perry Unit 1 in accordance with HRC Bulletin 88-07 and.
'l Supplement 1.
Further, the staff maintains that stability analyses are neither necessary nor sufficient for demonstrating that a BWR core is stable.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable essurance thht the health and safety of the public wi.11
- not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted it compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this r.mendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from A. Kaplan, Cleveland. Electric Illuminating Company, to USNRC, dated November 18, 1988.
2.
23A5948 GE Report, " Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Perry Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Reload 1, Cycle 2," dated November 1988.
3.
NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, GESTAR II," as amended, dated May 1986 and NEDE-24011PA9-US dated September 1988.
4.
23A5948A, Rev. O Supplement 1, " Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Perry Nuclear Power Plant Un1t 1, Reload 1, Cycle 2," GE Report dated Octcber 1988.
5.
Letter from J. S. Charnley, General Electric, to M. W. Hodges. NRC,
" GEMINI ODYN Adjustment Factors for BWR/6," dated July 6, 1987.
6.
Letter from Ashok C. Thadani to J. S. Charnley, General Electric,
" Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, GE Generic Licensing Reload Report, of Amendment 15," May 5,1988.
i l
,s, 7.
Letter from A. Kaplan, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, to USNRC,
" Technical Specification Change Request - Relesd Submittal," dated December 29, 1988.
8.-
NEDE-24011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, GESTAR-II" Amendment 15, dated May 5, 1988.
Principal Contributor:
Lambros Lois Dated: April 26, 1989 1
k 1
i 4
)
\\