ML20211N526

Application for Amend to License NPF-18,consisting of Tech Spec Change Request Re Reload Licensing Package for Cycle 2. Amend Increases Max Critical Power Ratio Fuel Cladding Integrity Safety Limit for Cycle 2.Fee Paid

ML20211N526
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	12/09/1986
From:	Allen C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20211N531	List: ML20211N526 ML20211N607 ML20211N612
References
2482K, TAC-48058, NUDOCS 8612180247
Download: ML20211N526 (9)

Text

_

~~

~~

l es

',o

/

(v %. IEr)ois 60600 - 0767 a g N % to:

R'8 hd am. C%, in%

Post % Sox 767 December 9, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20555 Washington, DC LaSalle County Station Unit 2 Proposed Amendment to Technical

Subject:

~

Specification for Facility Operating License NPF Reload Licensing Package for cycle 2 NRC Docket Nos. 50-3~14 J. F. Quirk (GE) to O. D. Parr (NRC),

" General Electric Licensing Topical References (a):

Report NEDE-24011-P-A, Generic Reload Fuel Application," 9/11/78.

GE Document, NEDE-240ll-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor (b):

Fue'.,

(GESTAR II).

NRC Memorandum, MFN-061-85, C. O. Thomas (NRC) to H. C. Pfefferlen (NRC), " Acceptance (c):

for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-240ll, Rev. 6, Amendment 8, ' Thermal Hydraulic Stability Amendment to GESTAR II,

dated April 24, 1985.

NRC Memorandum, L. S. Rubenstein (NRC) to i

G. C. Lainas (NRC), " Changes in GB Analys s (d):

of the Control Rod Drop Accident for PlantRelo 983.

Dear Mr. Denton:

roposes to amend Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Commonwealth Edison pility Operating License t ff's review and approval and Appendix A, Technical Specification, to Fac Startup for Cycle 2 These changes are being submitted for your s a lle Unit 2.

This change is essentially the sameith the are in support of the first reload for LaSa is currently scheduled for May, 1987.as was approved for Un to NPF-ll.

00h 8612180247 861209 DR ADOCK 05000374 RecN w&ectu)fbD 00 PDR

~

I l

i s December 9, 1986 H. R. Denton Attachment A provides background and discussion. The proposed changes are enclosed in Attachment B.

The attached change has received both on-Site and Off-Site review and approval. We have reviewed this amendment request and find that no significant hazards consideration exists.

Our review is documented in Attachment C.

Attachment D is the GE reload licen-sing submittal. Attachment E is an explanation of the Kg curve for LaSalle Units 1 and 2 which replaces the generic curve included in the present Technical Specifications.

Commonwealth Edison is notifying the State of Illinois of our request for this amendment by transmitting a copy of this letter and its attachments to the designated State Official.

In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.170, a fee remittance in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.

Please direct any questions you may have concerning this matter to this office.

Three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37) copies of this transmittal and its attachments are provided for your use.

Very tr

yours, C. M. Allen Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachmer us A: Background and Discussion B: Technical Specification Change to NPF-18 C: Evaluation of Significant Hazards Consideration D: GE Document, 23A4735, " Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, Reload 1 (Cycle 2)," dated June 1986 E: GE Letter, REP: 84-086, R. E. Parr to L.J.

Bridges dated June 24, 1984 cc: Region III Inspector - LSCS A. Bournia - NRR M. Parker - State of Ill SUBSP IBED AND S ORN to befcire me thik day of

/ALN/A, 1985 0

IbQ

' Notary Public' 2482K i

s i

ATTACHMENT A TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE RBOUEST LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNIT 2 BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION BACKGROUND i

LaSalle Unit 2, Cycle 2 will utilize 224 BP8CRB299L fuel bundles.

The fuel type is pre pressurized barrier fuel.

Information on the Cycle 2 reload may be found in the " Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for LaSalle County Station, Unit :2, Reload 1 (Cycle 2)", 23A4735 (Attachment D).

These Commonwealth Edison personnel have reviewed this report and commented.

comments and General Electric's response is provided in the enclosure to Attachment D.

Fuel type BP8CRB299L has been approved for inclusion in NEDE-240ll, the General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II).

This fuel type has been analyzed with approved methods and meets the approved The new fuel type for Unit 2 presents no unreviewed safety limits of GESTAR.

questions because the BP8CRB299L bundle design is included in GESTAR.

Shutdown margin during coastdown operation has been analyzed for LaSalle Unit 2 during Cycle 2 (see Reference 4).

At a cycle exposure of 7500 mwd /ST (after a coastdown of 725 mwd /ST), shutdown margin has increased Shutdown by 0.12 percent relative to the end-of-rated power exposure point.

margin will continue to increase for greater coastdown exposures.

The following sections discuss the key features of the reload.

A summary of proposed Technical Specification changes is included as an enclosure to this attachment.

1.

MCPR Safety Limit The MCPR fuel cladding integrity safety limit for Cycle 2 is 1.07.

This is an increase over the 1.06 allowed for the initial core (see Table S.2-3a of the GESTAR). The safety limit is smaller for initial cores because the uncertainties in TIP symmetry and the R Factor are The associated change to the Technical Specifications is smaller.

included in Attachment B.

I 2.

Limiting MCPR Transient The Cycle 2 MCPR operating limits required to preclude violation of the fuel cladding integrity safety limit are 1.24 and 8x8R fuel and 1.25 These values are based on the Feedwater Controller for BP8x8R fuel.

This Failure (FWCF) event analyzed with the ODYN Option B approach.

value is an increase of 0.01 over the initial cycle and so requires a i

Technical Specification change to Figure 3.2.3-1 (Attachment B).

r 4

s 'The slope change in Figure 3.2.3-1 indicates the chance in limiting less than 0.736, the limiting transient is the Rod transients. For For between 0.736 and 0.754, the Withdrawal Error-(RWE) event.

limiting transient is the Feedwater Controller Failure (FWCF) event.

greater than 0.754, the limiting transient is the Load Reject For Without Bypass (L/R wo BP) event.

Other MCPR related Technical Specification (3/4.2.3) changes were:

The replacement of the present Kg curve with a revised curve, Figure 3.2.3-2 (Attachment B).

The revised curve is based on a rated The original core power of 3323 MWth and core flow of 108.5 Mlb/hr.

Further discussion of this change is curve was a-generic curve.

provided in Attachment E.

The deletion of the EOC-RPT inoperable provision in the Technical The analysis was not cost justified for the second cycle Specification.

but may be included in future cycles.

3.

Loss of Feedwater Heating The Loss of Feedwater Heating (LoFWH) event was analyzed using the As stated in GESTAR GE BWR simulator Code rather than the REDY Code.

Section S.2.2 (Reference 1), slower core-wide transients such as LoFWH The similar Code results, can be analyzed using either of the Codes.

while still conservative, are more realistic than the REDY results.

A feedwater temperature change of 145*F was assumed for the LoFWH event (see Reference 4),.

A 145'F change will bound the temperature change of all probable LoFWH events.

Compliance to ASME Pressure Vessel Code 4.

The results of L2C2 analyses for the postulated MSIV closure without direct scram (with flux scram) provided in Reference 5 indicate that the peak steam dome pressure will be 1238 psig and the peak vessel These values are less than the steam dome pressure will be 1269 psig.

safety limit of 1325 psig from the Technical Specifications and the ASME vessel overpressurization limit of 1375 psig (110 percent of design Because the calculated values are less than the limits, the pressure).

pressure response is acceptable.

5.

Rod Withdrawal Error The Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE) has been analyzed on a plant / cycle CPR The RBM rod block selected setpoint of 107 gives a specific basis.

Adding this CPR to the of 0.18 for both the BP8x8R and the 8x8R fuel.

This is equal to the safety limit of 1.07 yields an event LCO of 1.25.

value for the FWCF event, so the RWE and the FWCF are the bounding A corresponding change to Technical specification Table 3.3.6-2 for RBM setpoints for single and dual recirculation loop operation has events.

been proposed in Attachment B.

r

-...-,,,e e,--.,,-_%.._.--

- ---<- m-nv.-

..,-e,-.c

-.m

r 5

t 6.

Puel Loading Error Event Neither No Puel Loading Error analysis is required for L2C2.

mislocated nor misoriented bundle events are analyzed for BWR-5 reloads.

The mislocated bundle accident is only performed for initial Data from past reloads indicate that the probability of cores.

mislocating a fuel bundle so that the CPR violates the safety limit is The sufficiently small that plant specific analyses are unnecessary.

NRC has given interim approval for this approach (see GESTAR Section S.2.5.4.1).

The misoriented bundle accident is not analyzed for C-lattice cores such as LaSalle because the misorientation causes an insignificant CPR This is due to the uniform water gaps in C-lattice cores vs change.

Proper orientation during core loading is also readily D-lattice cores.

verified visually. Por a more detailed discussion, see GESTAR Section S.2.5.4.2.

7.

Stability Analysis The L2C2 decay ratio at the intersection of the nature circulation line and the 105 percent rod line is 0.60.

Since existing Technical Specifications do not allow continued operation in natural circulation, combinations of low flow and high power sufficient to produce high decay ratios are not permitted.

The cycle specific decay ratio of 0.60 is less than the NRC acceptance criteria of 0.80 for plants with no stability monitoring Technical Specifications (see Reference 2).

Since the decay ratio is within the acceptance criteria, the stability of the reload is Although the cycle specific analysis is sufficient to acceptable.

demonstrate adequate stability, proposed Technical Specification changes for Single Loop Operation (SLO) stability monitoring have been included as Attachment B to address NRC concerns in this area.

8.

Single Loop Operation Proposed Technical Specification changes for single loop operation l

have also been provided as Attachment B.

Single loop operation was allowed during the first cycle but must be reapproved because it was only approved for the first cycle per Technical Specification Bases 3/4.4.1.

These specifications are consistent with those which have been approved for LaSalle Unit 1.

9.

Loss of Coolant Accident The MAPLHGR limits for the new fuel type BP8CRB299L are included in the GB Licensing Document (Attachment D).

The curve for these limits will be added to the LaSalle County Station Unit 2 Technical The new Technical Specification curve is included as Specifications.The existing Technical Specification curve Figure 3.2.1-1 Attachment B.

is corrected and included in Attachment B.

k

+

% 10.

Rod Drop Accident The Rod Drop Accident (RDA) svent has been statistically analyzed on a generic basis and is no longer analyzed on a plant cycle specific The generic analysis provides assurance that the 280 cal / gram basis.

The highest deposition enthalpy deposition limit will not be violated.

of enthalpy calculated was 158 cal / gram. This provides confidence on a 95/95 level that the Technical Specification limit will not be violated in the unlikely event of the postulated Design Basis RDA. The generic RDA analysis has been approved by the NRC (See Reference 3).

I 11.

Conclusion The L2C2 reload as described in the cycle specific licensing (Attachment D) and supporting documents is acceptable for use document in LaSalle Unit 2 Cycle 2.

Technical Specification changes described in Attachment B are required. Based on the preceding discussion, on-Site review recommends approval of the reload by Off-Site Review with submission to the NRC for approval prior to the startup.

2482K

r s

. s REFERENCES GE Document, NEDE-240ll-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for 1.

Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II)".

NRC Memorandum, MFN-061-85, C.O. Thomas (NRC) to H. C. Pfefferlen 2.

(NRC), " Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report

' Thermal Hydraulic Stability Amendment NEDE-240ll, Rev. 6, Amendment 8, to GESTAR II'", dated April 24, 1985.

NRC Memorandum, L.S. Rubenstein (NRC) to G.C. Lamas (NRC), " Changes in GE Analysis of the control Rod Drop Accident for Plant Reloads 3.

(TACS-48058)", dated February 15, 1983.86-108, R.E. Parr (GB) to J.L. Anderson, " General GE Letter, REF:

Electric's Responses to Edison's Comments on LaSalle County Unit 2 4.

27, 1986, Cycle 2 Draft Reload Licensing Submittal", dated June Attachment D, Enclosure.

GE Document, Additional Information Regarding the Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for LaSalle 2 Reload 1/ Cycle 2 (Attachment D, 5.

Enclosure).

l 2482K

~... -...

s 4

IDICLOSURE TO ATTACHMENT A SUM (ARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES The following Technical Specification changes will support operation of LaSalle County Station Unit 2 during Cycle 2.

Technical Specification 2.1, Safety Limits The MCPR fuel cladding integrity safety limit is changed from 1.06 to 1.07 for two recirculation loop operation, and from 1.07 to 1.08 for single recirculation loop operation.

I Safety Limits Bases Based Tables B2.1.2-1, B2.1.2-2, B2.1.2-3, and B2.1.2-4 are changed to reflect the reload core inputs to the statistical model which determines the MCPR safety limit. The reload values were obtained from GESTAR (Tables S.2-1, S.2-2, S.2-2c and Figure S.2-la).

The rated thermal power and flow of the GESTAB model is not the same as for LaSalle Units 1 and 2 (the model uses a power of 3293 MWth and core flow of 102.5 M1b/hr). The results of the analysis are considered to be bounding for plants rated at 3323 MWth and 108.5 Mlb/hr core power and flow, respectively. This analysis determines the value of the safety limit itself (1.07 for dual loop reload cores). The actual licensed plant specific rated power and flow values were used in the evaluation of transients to determine the cycle specific MCPR operating limit.

Technical Specification 3/4.2.1, Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate Reference to Figure 3.2.1-2, which contains the MAPLHGR vs Exposure curve for the reload fuel type BP8CRB299L, was added to the specification.

Fiqures 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.1-2, MAPLHGR limit vs Exposure Curves Figure 3.2.1-1 was changed to indicate the correct initial cycle fuel type designations.

Figure 3.2.1-2 was added to provide the MAPLHGR limit vs Exposure curve for the reload fuel type BP8CRB299L. A separate graph was used for the reload fuel in order to avoid confusion with the initial fuel curves.

Technical Specification 3/4.2.3, Minimum Critical Power Ratio The initial cycle provision for operation with the EOC-RPT system inoperable has been deleted. The analysis necessary to support ti l, provision was not justified for in the second cycle but may be included in future cycles.

r-o Q' Fiqure 3.2.3-1, MCPR vs at Rate Flow The present curve has been replaced by a curve which reflects the results of the cycle specific transient analysis for Cycle 2.

For less than 0.736 the limiting transient is the Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE) event.

For between 0,736 and 0.754, the lLaiting transient is the Feedwater Controller Failure (PWCF).

For greater than 0.754, the limiting transient is the Load Reject Without Bypass (L/R wo BP) event.

Fiqure 3.2.3-2, Kg curve The present curve has'been replaced by a revised curve which is based on a rated core power of 3323 MWth and core flow of 1.08.5 M1b/hr.

The original curve was a generic curve.

Technical Specification 3.3.4.2 BOC-RPT INSTRUMENTATION ACTION Statements d and e were revised to remove the reference to Specification 3.2.3, since no RPT-inoperable analysis was performed for the reload. Power reduction requirements (to below the operability range of the RPT system at 30% power) were inserted in the event that restoration of an inoperable trip system (s) cannot be accomplished within the specified time period.

Technical Specification 3/4.4.1 Recirculation System The Recirculation Gyatem Specification is revised to raflect the MCPR Safety Limit for Single Loop Operation (SLO) of 1.08.

Additionally, the actions required for Thermal-Hydraulic Stability monitoring in SLO are revised to increase assurance of avoiding possible unstable conditions. The specification is changed to match the previously approved recirculation specification for LaSalle Unit 1 Technical Specifications.

Figure 3.4.1.1-1 is added to support stability monitoring in Specification 3/4.4.1.

Bases for Specification 3/4.4.1 The Bases for Specification 3/4.4.1 is revised to reflect that reload cycles are analyzed for SLO.

A paragraph is added to reflect the basis for the stability monitoring required during SLO.

Table 3.3.6-2 CONTROL ROD WITHDRAWAL BLOCK INSTRUMENTATION SETPOINTS Table 3.3.6-2 is revised to incorporate the required RBM setpoint change (RBM Setpoint of 107%).

2482K i

. -.