ML20134F609

Application for Amend to License DPR-56,revising Slmcprs,Ts Section 2.0,by Incorporating Rev Due to GE Determination That Previous Calculation Is non-conservative

ML20134F609
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	10/30/1996
From:	PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20134F611	List: ML20134F609 ML20134F612
References
NUDOCS 9611070056
Download: ML20134F609 (6)

Text

. . . - - - . . - - . ~ . . _ . - - - . . - _ . . - . - - - . _ . - - - . - . - . - - - - _ - - , - . -

ttation tupport Deptrtment 4

=5$na 10 CFR 50.90

• PECO NUCLEAR ecco tee <ov cemneev 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard A Unit of PECO Energy Wayne, PA 19087 5691 e

i October 30,1996

! Docket No. 50-278 i

l Ucense No. DPR-56 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Subject. Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3 Ucense Change Application ECR 96-02609

Dear Sir:

PECO Energy Company (PECO Energy) hereby submits License Change Application ECR 96-02000, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, requesting a change to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3 FacIlty Operating Ucense This proposed change will revise TS Section 2.0, " Safety Umits." This Section will be revised to incorporate revised Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs) due to the determination by General Electric Nuclear Energy (GENE) that the previous calculation of the SLMCPRs is non-conservative. This change j is simuar to Ucense Change Request No. 9641 for PBAPS, Unit 2, which was approved by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Amendment No. 217 dated September 27,1996.

Informatioc supporting this request is contained in Attachment 1 to this letter, and the marked up page slowing the proposed changes to the PBAPS, Unit 3 TS is contained in Attachment 2.

Attachment 3 (letter from R. M. Butrovich (GENE) to H. J. Diamond (PECO Energy), " Peach Bottom Unit 3 Safety Limit MCPR Revision," dated July 7,1996) specifies the new SLMCPRs for PBAPS, Unit 3.

We request that, if approved, the amendment to the PBAPS, Unit 3 TS become effective within 30 days of issuance.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, b.a.G. A. Hunger, J .,4 Director - Licensing g Enclosures Affidavit, Attachment 1, Attachment 2, Attachment 3 hl cc: H. J. Miller, Administrator, Region 1. USNRC W. L Schmidt, USNRC Senior Resident inspector, PBAPS R. R. Janati, CO,r.,vicr.zih of Pennsylvania 9611070056 961030 PDR ADOCK 05000278 P PDM

i i

1

' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA  :

ss.

1 COUNTY OF CHESTER  : 1 D. B. Fetters, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:

That he is Vice President of PECO Energy Company; the Applicant herein; that he has read the i attached License Change Application ECR 96-02609, for Peach Bottom Facky Operating License DPR-56, and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

Vice President l

Subscribed and sworn to ylv before me this30 day of hbb 1996.

NoiarMusic h; ry pubT.0 fl?):LCU

, m - .lrCa.' .

.. e ; y; i

' .-.1 - -

y ..

1

. - - _ . .~ ._. ~ . - . - . . ..=.- - - _ . - . . - . . - . _ . . _ . _ - . . _ . - .

I

i i

1 i

ATTACHMENT 1 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT 3 i

Docket No. 50-278 Ucense No. DPR-56 UCENSE CHANGE APPUCATION ECR 9642609

" Revision of SLMCPRs" Supporting information - 3 Pages l l

l i

l l

DockQ No. 50-278 i

, , License No. DPR-56 Introductibn PECO Energy Company, Licensee under Faculty Operating License DPR-56 for the Peach Bottom i Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, requests that the Technical Specincations (TS) contained in

. Appendix A to the Operating License be amended to revise TS Section 2.1 to reRect changes in the

Safety Limit Minimum Crtical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs). The TS page showing the proposed changes is j contained in Attachment 2. Attachment 3 (Letter from R. M. Butrovich (GENE) to H. J. Diamond (PECO l Energy), " Peach Bottom Unit 3 Safety Limit MCPR Revleion," dated July 7,1996) specifies the new l SLMCPRs for PBAPS, Unit 3. This License Change Application provides a discussion and description of j the proposed TS changes, a safety assessment of the proposed TS changes, information supporting a

finding of No Significant Hazards Consideration and information supporting an Environmental

! Assessment I

Discussion and Description of the Proposed Change j The proposed change involves revismg the SLMCPRs contained in Section 2.1 of the PBAPS, Unit 3 TS.

j PECO Energy was advised by General Electric Nuclear Energy (GENE) that the tr.ethodology used by j GENE to calculate the generic SLMCPR may not always yield the most conservative result and that l GENE has performed a plant unique evaluation for PBAPS, Unit 3, Cycle 11. As a result of this plant

, unique evaluation, the SLMCPR for PBAPS, Unit 3, Cycle 11, is 1.08. The single loop operation SLMCPR l Is 1.00 and is determined on a generic approach. A 0.01 penalty for single loop operation is applied to

! the cyde-speclAc SLMCPR value of 1.08. The 0.01 penalty has been confirmed to be conservative 1

based on a plant specific analysis by GENE as documented in GENE's Design Record File. The calculation of the cycle-specific SLMCPR value for PBAPS, Unit 3, Cycle 11, is based upon USNRC-

, approved methods (" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel,' NEDE-24011-P-A-11, and j U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-11-US, November 17,1995) and interim (reconfirmation)

! implementing procedures. Revision 11 of the aforementioned document, "GESTAR 11', requires that the

! SLMCPR be reconfirmed each cycle. This reconRrmation was performed using the interim j (reconfirmation) implementing procedures which the USNRC staff discussed with GENE during their i meetings on Aptt 17,1996 and May 6,1996 through May 10,1996. These reconfirmation procedures

utilize cycle-speclHe parameters which include

1) the actual core loading, 2) conservative variations of t projected control blade pattoms, 3) the actual bundle parameters (e.g., local peaking), and 4) the full

. cycle awpamme range Specincally, the implementing procedures involve reconfirmation of the l

! applicabilty of the generic SLMCPR to PBAPS, Unit 3, Cycle II. This reconnrmation was performed by l

{ incorporating cyde-speciRc parameters into the analysis described in Section 1.1.5 of GESTAR ll, I Revision 11, and indicates that the generic SLMCPR wlN not bound PBAPS, Unit 3, Cycle 11; therefore, the resulting cycle-specific SLMCPR wlN be applied to PBAPS, Unit 3, Cycle 11. Instead of using a i typical, large, high-power density plant and bounding equilibrium core, the actual projected PBAPS, Unit  !

3, Cycle 11 core loading was used and the analysis was performed at the maximum licensed thermal power for PBAPS, Unit 3. Multiple exposure points in the projected Cycle 11 were checked to obtain the

limiting case. The core radial power distribution was manipulated by adjusting control rods to maximize

the number of bundles near thermal limits using only symmetric control rod pattems. The dependency l of the local power distributions on specific bundle design characteristics is explicitly addressed by using

actual bundle and pin-by-pin R-factors. The number of rods anticipated to be susceptible to transition j bouing is uniquely defined by the core loading and local power distributions and from those used in previous generic analyses. The SLMCPR is selected such that 99.9% of the rods in the core are j awpartart to avoid transition boeing.

The methodology for determining the conservative variations of projected control blade patterns used to j calculate the SLMCPR for PBAPS, Unit 3 was provided in our response to the request for additional

information regarding the revision to License Change Request No. 96-01 for PBAPS, Unit 2, dated i September 27,1996 (letter from G. A. Hunger, Jr. (PECO Energy) to USNRC). Additionally, the i methodology for determining the differences between the cycle-speelRc SLMCPR and generic SLMCPR l Is contained in the September 27,1996 letter.

2

- - - - - . - . . - . . . - - - . - - - - - . . . - _ . . - ~ _

i DockQ No. 50-278 i . .

License No. DPR-56 4

j .. ..

I Therefore, we propose that PBAPS, Unit 3 TS Section 2.1 be revised to reflect the change in the SLMCPRs.

Safety Aaaessment The prnpnand TS change will revise TS Section 2.1 to reRect the changes in the SLMCPRs due to the plant specific sweluatinn performed by GENE for PBAPS, Unit 3. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using USNRC4pproved methods (" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," NEDE-24011-P-A-11, and U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-11-US, November 17,1996) and interim (recordirmation) implementing procedures as discussed between the USNRC and GENE during their meetings on April 17,1996, and May 6,1996 through May 10,1996. The SLMCPRs are set high enough to ensure that greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core avoid transition bolling ll the limit is not violated. The SLMCPRs incorporate margin for uncertainty in the core operating state and for uncertainties which are ,

dependent on fuel type, including fuel bundle nuclear characteristics, crkical power correlation, and '

manufacturing tolerances. These interim (reconfirmation) procedures include cycle-specific parameters which include: 1) the actual core loading,2) conservative variations of projected control blade pattoms,

3) the actual bundle parameters (e.g., local peaking), and 4) the full cycle exposure range. The new SLMCPRs at PBAPS, Unit 3 Cycle 11 are 1.08 and 1.09 (single loop operation).

Irdormatlan Sucoortino a Findino of No Sionificant Ha>=rds Conaldaration We have concluded that the proposed change to the PBAPS, Unit 3 TS, which will revise TS Section 2.1 to change the SLMCPRs, does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration. In support of this .

determination, an evaluation of each of the three (3) standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 is provided I below

1. The oronomad TS chanoes do not involve a alu,,;Tcarit incraana in the orchahHitV or consmousnces of an accident oreviousiv evaluated.

The derivation of the cycle-specific SLMCPRs for incorporation into the TS, and its use to determine cycle-specific thermal limits, have been performed using USNRC-approved methods as discussed in " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," NEDE-24011-P-A-11, and U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-11-US, November 17,1996 and interim (reconfirmation) implementing procedures. This change in SLMCPRs cannot increase the probabilky or severky of an accident.

The basis of the SLMCPR calculation is to ensure that greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core avoid transition boiling ll the limit is not violated. The new SLMCPRs preserve the existing margin to transkion boiling and fuel damage in the event of a postulated accident. The fuel licensing acceptance crkeria for the SLMCPR calculation apply to PBAPS, Unk 3, Cycle 11 in the same manner as they have applied previously. The probabilty of fuel damage is not increased.

Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve an increase in the probabilky or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. The orannaad TS chanoma do not cr=='a the n~ahakv of a new nr different kind of accidant from any accident oroviousiv evaluated.

The SLMCPR is a TS numerical value, designed to ensure that transkion boiling does not occur in 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core during the limiting postulated accident. It cannot create the pnaamy of any now type of accident. The new SLMCPRs are calculated using USNRC-approved methods (" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," NEDE-24011-P-A-11, and U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-11-US, November 17,1995) and interim (reconfirmation) implementing procedures.

._-____.m. . _ _ . .. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . .

i l j DockC) No. 50-278 4

License No. DPR-56 i

. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibilty of a new or different kind of arvMant, from any accident previously evaluated.

1

3. The oranaamri TS chanoes do not involve a sinnificard rW*lan in a maroin of safety.

l The margin of safety as defined in the TS Bases wul remain the same. The new SLMCPRs are

*d=8ari using USNRC-approved methods (" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor

Fuel,' NEDE-24011-P-A-11, and U.S. Supplement, NEDE-24011-P-A-11 US, November 17,1996) l and interim (reconfirmation) implementing procedures which are in accordance with the current

fuel lloonsing criteria The SLMCPRs ensure that greater than 99.9% of all fuel rods in the core

wil avoid transition boling if the limit is not violated, thereby preserving the fuel cladding j integrty. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not involve a reduction in a margin of safety, i

l t Information Succorting an Environmental Assessment

An environmental assessment is not required for the proposed changes since the proposed changes i conform to the crkeria for " actions eligible for categorical exclusion" as specified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

The prapaamd changes wBl have no impact on the environment. The proposed changes do not involve

a significant hazards consideration as discussed in the preceding section. The proposed changes do i

not involve a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any alliuents that i may be released afloite. In addition, the prnpanari changes do not involve a significant increase in

individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure

Conclusion i

The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board have reviewed this proposed )

change to the PBAPS, Unit 3 TS and have concluded that k does not involve an unreviewed safety l question, and wlN not endanger the health and safety of the public.

J 1

i l

l 1

i

)

I i

a 1

'