PLA-6912, Summary Report and Changes to Regulatory Commitments
| ML12278A433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/2012 |
| From: | Helsel J Susquehanna |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk |
| References | |
| PLA-6912 | |
| Download: ML12278A433 (8) | |
Text
Jeffrey M. Helsel Nuclear Plant Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 PPL Susquehanna, LLC 769 Salem Boulevard Berwick, PA 18603 Tel. 570.542.3510 Fax 570.542.1504 jmhelsel@ pplweb.com SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION 10 CFR 50.59
SUMMARY
REPORT AND CHANGES TO REGULATORY COMMITMENTS PLA-6912 Docket No. 50-387 and 50-388
Reference:
"10 CFR 50.59 Summary Report and Changes to Regulatory Commitments,"
dated October 7, 2010. is the summary report of the PPL Susquehanna, LLC 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluation of Changes, Tests, and Experiments approved during the period between September 1, 2010 and August 31, 2012. This report is required by 10 CFR 50.59(d)(2) and is to be submitted at intervals not to exceed 24 months. The previous report (Reference 1) included the period from September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2010.
The summary of the 50.59 Evaluations documented in Attachment 1 is formatted as follows:
50.59 Evaluation No:
Cross-
Reference:
Unique number for each evaluation.
Reference to the document for which the 50.59 Evaluation was prepared.
Description of Change:
A brief description of the changes, tests, and experiments.
Summary:
A summary ofPPL Susquehanna, LLC's basis for concluding that a license amendment was not required pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(b)(2). is a Summary of Changes to Regulatory Commitments for the commitments that were changed in accordance with the guidance of NEI 99-04, "Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes" and SECY 045. Per NEI 99-04, commitment changes are required to be reported to the NRC either annually or with an FSAR update per 10CFR?0.71(e). PPL is providing commitment changes along with the Summary of 50.59 Evaluations report rather than including them in an FSAR update. The next FSAR update is required to be issued to the NRC in the fall of 2013.
Document Control Desk PLA-6912 For each commitment change, a description of the change and the justification for the commitment change is provided.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Duane L. Filchner at (610) 774-7819. : 10 CFR 50.59 Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments : Changes to Regulatory Commitments Copy:
NRC Region I Mr. P. W. Finney, NRC Sr. Resident Inspector Mr. J. Whited, NRC Project Manager Mr. L. J. Winker, DEP/BRP to PLA-6912 10 CFR 50.59 Summary of Changes, Tests, and Experiments
50.59 Evaluation No.:
50.59 SE 00016 Cross-
Reference:
LDCN No. 4906 to PLA -6912 Page 1 of2 Description of Change:
Revised the Unit 1 Cycle 17 Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) operating limit contained in Revision 1 to the Unit 1 Cycle 17 Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)
Summary:
PPL requested that AREV A re-evaluate the Unit 1 Cycle 17 reload licensing analysis (documented in Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapters 5, 6, and 15) using a larger delay in the Feedwater - Main Turbine High Water Level Trip (Technical Specification 3.3.2.2). The revised licensing analysis resulted in a change to the Unit 1 Cycle 17 MCPR operating limit.
AREV A's re-evaluation of the Unit 1 Cycle 17 reload licensing analysis used version of the X COBRA and XCOBRA-T computer codes that are different than the versions used to support the Unit 1 Cycle 17 COLR currently documented in Technical Requirements Manual 3.2. The new versions of the X COBRA and X COBRA-T computer codes involve revised elements of FSAR described evaluation methodology that is used in the safety analyses, and therefore required evaluation under 10 CFR 50.59. This activity only involved a change in an evaluation methodology. AREV A compared the changes in X COBRA and X COBRA-T to the versions of the codes previously approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The comparison demonstrated that the proposed changes to X COBRA and X COBRA-T were conservative or essentially the same as the NRC-approved versions of the computer codes. Therefore, the activity did not require a license amendment.
50.59 Evaluation No.:
50.59 SE 00017 Cross-
Reference:
LDCN No. 4978 to PLA-6912 Page 2 of2 Description of Change:
HUXY code change for Unit 1 Cycle 18licensing analysis Summary: AREVA's evaluation of the Unit 1 Cycle 18 reload licensing analysis used a new version of the HUXY computer code. The HUXY computer code is part of the EXEM Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) methodology described in the FSAR and is used to perform heatup calculations of the peak power plane in a BWR fuel assembly during the blowdown, refill and reflood phases of a LOCA transient and yields peak cladding temperature and local cladding oxidation at the axial plan of interest. The new version of the code used by AREV A models the radiation heat transfer between the fuel rod of interest and other fuel rods, the internal water canisters and the fuel channel. AREV A developed this new approach for calculating radiation view factors and has implemented it within the HUXY computer program. This new method, a numerical calculation, achieved through a ray-tracing algorithm, provide a straight forward accounting of the geometry to compute the view factor from each fuel rod to all other fuel rods, internal water structures and the external fuel channel without the simplifying assumptions associated with the current method (i.e., cross string). The Peak Clad Temperature (PCT) impact between the analysis of record and the application of the new view factor evaluation is zero.
The HUXY change was determined to be a change to an element of the methodology discussed in the NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for topical report XN-CC-33(A),
Revision 1, "HUXY: Generalized Multirod Heatup Code with 10 CFR 50, Appendix K Heatup Option User's Manual," dated November 1975, and therefore the change did not require a license amendment.
to PLA-6912 Changes to Regulatory Commitments
Commitment Change No:
LDCN 4947 to PLA-6912 Page 1 of2 Description of Change:
Revised commitment made in PPL response (PLA-6019, dated February 22, 2006) to NRC Order EA-06-137, "Issuance of Order Requiring Compliance with Key Radiological Protection Mitigation Strategies," regarding strategies B.l.b and B.2.a, which require the dispersal of plant personnel during a potential B.5.b threat event.
Summary:
The commitment strategy is for a pre-event notification to stage plant personnel identified in Mitigation Strategies B.l.b and B.2.a to maximize their survivability. The original commitment staged personnel in one specific location for all event notifications (i.e., imminent/probable versus potential). The original commitment has been revised to stage personnel for certain types of event notifications and for other notifications, to allow personnel to remain in various places within the plant. This new strategy meets the same requirement as the original commitment in that personnel survivability is maximized.
Commitment Change No: LDCN 4994 to PLA-6912 Page 2 of2 Description of Change:
In a PPL response (PLA-6242, dated July 1, 2007) to an NRC request for additional information regarding justification for the weld factors used on the Susquehanna steam dryers, PPL committed to performing a liquid penetrant test (PT) on the root pass and final weld pass on various welds on the dryer vane banks.
However, General Electric (GE) identified that the liquid penetrant test was not performed on the root pass of several steam dryer welds. This was documented in GE report CAR 54987 CA2. The new commitment is to provide a stress reconciliation report instead of performing aPT on the root pass on the welds to justify the weld factors.
Summary:
The steam dryers have already been constructed, installed and in operation.
It is not possible to perform a PT on the root pass of the welds. Therefore, an alternate justification for the weld factors is required. GE will provide PPL with a stress reconciliation report, which will justify the use of the welds without performing a PT on the root pass of the welds.