ML20247J153
| ML20247J153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247J145 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906010056 | |
| Download: ML20247J153 (7) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _
p D".. -
(
UNITED STATES
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-5 j
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE 0FFICE 0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.
20
.T0 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 cated November 28, 1988 and December 29, 1988, the Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company, the licensee for the Perry Unit 1 Nuclear Generating
~
Station, proposed to amend the Technical Specifications for the Cycle 2 reload andoperation-(Refs.1,2and7). The reload includes 272 new assemblies of GE manufacture. The reload design has no unusual features. The proposed Technical S' edification changes are related to the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR),
a tieMaximumAverage.PlanarLinearHeatGenerationRate(MAPLHGR),andupdating the b.ses and references associated with certain cycle-dependent limits. The December 29, 1980 submittal also proposed TS changes to specify values for flow-dependentMAPLHGRfactor(MAPFAC)andMCPRf for off-rated conditions of f
operation. The new fuel is of slightly increased 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 lcw 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 thermal,mechanicalandLoss-of-CoolantAccident(LOCA)analysescalculations.
The most limiting MAPLHGR's as a function of burnup for 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.
J W A888e 8s88)h o P
. 2.3 Nuclear Design-The nuclear design for Cycle 2 has been performed by GE using the approved (kef.3).
GESTAR II methodology (Ref. 2) in the GESTAR II format.The results of these analyse the GE reload report The results are within the usual reload range.. The shutdown margin is 2.9% delca-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 margin. Both meet the 0.38% delta-k/k margin required by the Technical Specifications. The standby liquid :;catrol system also meets the shutdown requirements with a shutdown margin of 4.0% delta-k/k. Because these end other nuclear characteristics of the reload have been computed with' previausly-approved methods (outlined in GESTAR II) and their values are within the ellowed 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 in the standard GESTAR II 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 analyses are reflected in the requested Technical Specification changes. The MCPR for Cycle 2 has been increased from 1.06 to 1.07 to account for Cycle 2 uncertainties.
The results.are withM expected ranges and, hence, they are acceptable.
For the Perry Unit 1, C cle 2, no cycle-specific stability analysis is.equired because the Technical Specifications have standard NRC-approved provisions for 1
incore neutron detector monitoring of thermal-hydraulic-stability according to
~
the recommendations of the General Electric SIL-380. Nevertheless, effective December 1,1988, the licensee instituted procedures for the instance of loss 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 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 uud. The MCPR operating limit was 1
determined from the loss of 100*F feedvater heating transient, delta-CPR = 0.11 added to the MCPR of 1.07 for a cycle operating MCPR limit of 1.18. The core-i 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 loading errors to BWR/6 plants as documented in Ref. 3.
The limiting overpressurization event analysis, i.e., main isolation valve closure with flux scram, was performed using the GEMINI methods (Ref, 5 and 6) at 102% of power level to accou.nt for the power level uncertainties specified in Regulatory Guide 1.49. The results show that the peak steam dome and vessel pressures of 1,235 and 1,266 psig are under 1375 psig, i.e., the 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 operability /inoperability which will allow operating flexibility.
Equipment 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 specifi-l cations the effects of feedwater heaters being out of service, single loop l
operation, maximum extended operating domain conditions, and increased core flow. Thea 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 specification 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
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 i
I flow increase. The MCPR were calculated as a function of flow.
For each f
value of the flow the 11thiting 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 met.
. The revision of these curves for Cycle 2 was necessitated by the non-conserva-tive behavior at low flows of the GEXL-Plus critical power correlation used in the analysis of Cycle 2.
The staff requires additional conservatism for flows below 40% of the rated flow (GESTAR, Amenoment 15, Ref. 8). This conservatism is given in the form of a flow-dependent factor, MAPFAC, and the value of the f
flow dependent MCPR These quantities are specified ih Figures 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.2-1whicharep$r.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 calcul
.onal methodology was based on GEXL-Plut and an NRC-approved code. The cal'.ational 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 l
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 3.2.1-5 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 assenblies present in Cycle 2.
This change is acceptable as discussed in the evaluation.
L' 1 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 CONCLUSIONS 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 psoposed Technical Specifications submitted for the Cycle 2 reload represent the necessary modifications for this cycle.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 l
no significant increese in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i.
of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant L -
increase in individual cr cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, this amendment mets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFh 51.22(c)(9).
I Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Convents were received dated February 22, 1988 with respect to the proposed
' issuance of this amendment and are addressed below.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED On February 22, 1989 Susan L. Hiatt, representing Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (0CRE), 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 Register on February 1, 1989. Ms. Hiatt stated that the amendment request is ceficient in that a stability analysis had not been conducted by the licensees. She further stated that the licensees should be required to conduct a stability analysis l
for the second operating cycle demonstrating compliance with GDC-10 and -12 as a condition 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 L ch 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 1 to that bulletin on June 22, 1988 and December 30, 1988, respectively. The bulletin states a modified staff position wherein L
. 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 l
. oscillations are avoided or promptly detected and suppressed. The General Electric (GE) SIL-380 guidance regarding operating procedures was modified by 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 NRC Bulletin 88-07 and Supplement 1.
Further, the staff maintains that stability analyses are neither necessary nor sufficient for demonstrating that a BWE core is stable.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thst:
(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) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission'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,
6.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from A. Kaplan, Cleveland Electric 111uminating 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 Unit 1, Reload 1, Cycle 2," GE Report dated October 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 Saferencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, GE Generic Licensing Reload Report, of Amendment 15," May 5,1988.
, 7.
Letter from A. Kaplan, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, to UShRC,
" Technical Specification Change Request - Reload 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 Lofs Dated: May 18, 1989 J
l e
i l.
l i
j