L-2012-132, Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request - Supplement to Proposed Technical Specification Changes Related to Spent Fuel Storage Requirements and Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) References

Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request - Supplement to Proposed Technical Specification Changes Related to Spent Fuel Storage Requirements and Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) References

ML12094A317
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/31/2012
From:	Richard Anderson Florida Power & Light Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-2012-132
Download: ML12094A317 (19)

Text

0 Florida Power & Light Company, 6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957 FPL March 31, 2012 L-2012-132 10 CFR 50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Re: St. Lucie Plant Unit 1 Docket No. 50-335 Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67 Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request - Supplement to Proposed Technical Specification Changes Related to Spent Fuel Storage Requirements and Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) References

References:

(1) R. L. Anderson (FPL) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (L-2010-259), "License Amendment Request (LAR) for Extended Power Uprate," November 22, 2010, Accession No. ML103560419.

(2) FPL Letter to NRC, L-2011-409, "Revision to Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Proposed Technical Specification Regarding Fuel Loading Curve and Areal Density Criteria for Metamic Inserts," October 14, 2011 (ML11291A035).

(3) Email from T. Orf (NRC) to C. Wasik (FPL), "St. Lucie Unit I EPU SRXB Spent Fuel Criticality Comments," March 21, 2012.

(4) FPL Letter to NRC, L-2011-206, "Information Regarding Areva LOCA and non-LOCA Methodologies Provided in Support of the St. Lucie Unit I License Amendment for Extended Power Uprate," May 27, 2011 (ML 1 153A048).

By letter L-2010-259 dated November 22, 2010 [Reference 1], Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) requested to amend Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-67 and revise the St.

Lucie Unit 1 Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed amendment will increase the unit's licensed core thermal power level from 2700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3020 MWt and revise the Renewed Facility Operating License and TS to support operation at this increased core thermal power level. This represents an approximate increase of 11.85% and is therefore considered an Extended Power Uprate (EPU).

an FPL Group company

L-2012-132 Page 2 of 2 By letter L-2011-409 dated October 14, 2011 [Reference 2], FPL revised the proposed changes to TS Section 5.6 regarding spent fuel pool storage requirements. By email dated March 21, 2012 [Reference 3], the NRC project manager provided five comments from the NRC Reactor Systems Branch related to the proposed TS chainges. Attachment 1 provides a description and justification for the proposed changes to TS Section 5.6, which address the five Reactor Systems Branch comments.

By letter L-2011-206 dated May 27, 2011 [Reference 4], FPL provided additional information regarding the AREVA, NP (AREVA) loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA methodologies. Attachment 2 provides a description and justification for the proposed changes to TS 6.9.1.11, which update the references based on the latest documents applicable to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits.

This submittal contains no new commitments and no revisions to existing commitments. provides the marked-up TS pages associated with the changes described in Attachments 1 and 2. provides the processed or "clean" TS pages.

This submittal does not alter the significant hazards consideration or environmental assessment previously submitted by FPL letter L-2010-259 [Reference 1].

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.9 1(b)(1), a copy of this letter is being forwarded to the designated State of Florida official.

Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Christopher Wasik, St. Lucie Extended Power Uprate LAR Project Manager, at 772-467-7138.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

Executed on 3 i-/lre-% - ,,o 1.Z Very. truly yours, Site Vice President St. Lucie Plant Attachments (4) cc: Mr. William Passetti, Florida Department of Health

L-2012-132 Attachment 1 Page 1 of 3 Attachment I Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Revision to Proposed Change to Technical Specification Section 5.6, Fuel Storage - Criticality By letter L-2010-259, dated November 22, 2010 [Reference 1], FPL requested to amend Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) No. DPR-67 and revise the Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed amendment will increase the unit's licensed core thermal power level from 2700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3020 MWt and revise the Renewed FOL and TS to support operation at this increased thermal power level. This represents an approximate increase of 11.85% and is therefore considered an extended power uprate (EPU).

By letter L-2011-409, dated October 14, 2011 [Reference 2], FPL revised the changes to the TS Section 5.6, Fuel Storage - Criticality. In an email dated March 21, 2012 from NRC (T. Orf) to FPL (C. Wasik),

Subject:

St. Lucie 1 EPU SRXB spent fuel criticality comments

[Reference 3], the NRC staff provided five comments related to the proposed TS Section 5.6 changes. The response to the NRC comments and revised proposed TS changes are provided below.

Description of the Change Subsequent to the submittal of the EPU LAR, FPL updated the fuel loading curves to preclude the need to extrapolate the values associated with the determination of the minimum required fuel assembly burnup. As a result, FPL revised the EPU LAR proposed changes to TS Section 5.6, FUEL STORAGE - CRITICALITY by letter FPL-2011-409 dated October 14, 2011

[Reference 2]. By email dated March 21, 2012 [Reference 3], the NRC identified five comments regarding the proposed TS changes. The NRC's comments are being addressed with this proposed change.

TS Section 5.6 is being revised as described below:

" The Notes for new Figure 5.6-1, Allowable Region 1 Storage Patterns and Fuel Arrangements are revised as follows:

a. Note 2 is revised to delete the term "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)" such that the third sentence reads: "Allowable pattern is at least one insert [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA] in any one of the 2x2 array locations."

b. Note 4 is revised to replace the second sentence with the following: "Each cell is a part of up to four 2x2 arrays, and each cell must simultaneously meet the requirements of all those arrays of which it is a part."

c. Note 5 is revised to delete the term "open" and replace it with "empty," such that the note reads: "Empty cells within any pattern are acceptable."

• The Notes for new Figure 5.6-2, Allowable Region 2 Storage Patterns and Fuel Arrangements, are revised as follows:

a. Note 2 is revised to delete the term "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)" such that the third sentence reads: "Allowable pattern is at least two inserts [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA] in the 2x2 array."

b. Note 3 is revised to delete the term "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)" such that the third sentence reads: "Allowable pattern is at least one insert [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA] in the 2x2 array."

L-2012-132 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 3

c. Note 4 is revised to replace the second sentence with the following: "Each cell is a part of up to four 2x2 arrays, and each cell must simultaneously meet the requirements of all those arrays of which it is a part."

d. Note 5 is revised to delete the term "open" and replace it with "empty," such that the note reads: "Empty cells within any pattern are acceptable."

The NOTES for new Figure 5.6-3, Region 2 Interface Requirements with Region 1, are revised as follows:

a. Note 2 is revised to delete the term "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)" such that the first sentence reads: "For the interface of Pattern "D" with Region 1, at least one cell on the rack periphery facing Region 1 rack must contain an insert (either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA) in the 2x2 array."

b. Note 3 is revised to delete the term "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)" such that the second sentence reads: "The insert may be either a Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA."

c. Note 4 is revised to delete the term "open" and replace it with "empty," such that the note reads: "Empty cells within any pattern are acceptable."

NOTE 1 for new Table 5.6-1, Minimum Burnup as a Function of Enrichment, is revised to read:

"To qualify in a "fuel type", the burnup of a "fuel assembly", must exceed the minimum burnup "BU" calculated by inserting the "coefficients" for the associated "fuel type" and "cooling time" into the polynomial function:"

The revised marked up TS pages are provided in Attachment 3. Note that the pages contain the applicable changes submitted in FPL letters L-2010-259 and L-2011-409 [References 1 and 2, respectively].

The revised clean TS pages are provided in Attachment 4.

Basis for the Change The statement "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)" was originally included to allow an option to use equivalent poison rods as alternates to CEAs and Metamic inserts. Since the current plan is to go ahead with CEAs and Metamic inserts as poison in the spent fuel pool, this option of having equivalent poison rods is not being pursued and is considered no longer needed. With the deletion of "or equivalent (5 absorber rods)", criticality analysis remains unaffected as ýonly CEA and Metamic are credited as poison in the analysis. This change is therefore acceptable.

The remaining proposed changes to TS figure and table notes are administrative in nature. The notes are revised to provide clarity as requested by the NRC. There are no technical changes associated with the proposed changes. The proposed changes are supported by the previously submitted criticality analysis.

No Significant Hazards Consideration Removal of the option to use an equivalent CEA does not diminish the ability to ensure that spent fuel pool criticality remains within acceptable limits.. The criticality analysis credits the use of Metamic inserts or full-length full-strength CEAs, which will be employed as required by the TS to ensure compliance with the spent fuel pool criticality analysis.

The proposed changes to TS figure and table notes are administrative in nature. The notes are revised to provide clarity as requested by the NRC. There are no technical changes associated

L-2012-132 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 3 with the proposed change. As such, the conclusions of EPU LAR Attachment 1, Section 5.2, No Significant Hazards Consideration, Item P. Design Features - Fuel Storage, remain valid.

Based on the above, the proposed changes 1) do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, 2) do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated, and 3) do not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Environmental Evaluation The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Elimination of the option to use an equivalent full-length full-strength CEA is editorial in that it does not impact the ability to comply with the TS requirements; the notes are revised to provide clarity. There are no technical changes associated with the proposed change. The environmental considerations evaluation contained in the EPU LAR remain valid. Accordingly, the proposed license amendment is eligible for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.22(b),

no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is needed in connection with

.the approval of the proposed license amendment.

L-2012-132 Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 2 Extended Power Uprate License Amendment Request Revision to Proposed Change to Technical Specification 6.9.1.11, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)

By letter L-2010-259, dated November 22, 2010 [Reference 1], FPL requested to amend Renewed Facility Operating License (FOL) No. DPR-67 and revise the Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed amendment will increase the unit's licensed core thermal power level from 2700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3020 MWt and revise the Renewed FOL and TS to support operation at this increased thermal power level. This represents an approximate increase of 11.85% and is therefore considered an extended power uprate (EPU). By letter L-2011-206 dated May 27, 2011 [Reference 4], FPL supplemented the Reference 1 LAR with analyses performed using modified AREVA, NP (AREVA) loss of coolant accident (LOCA) and non-LOCA methodologies.

The proposed change to TS 6.9.1.11, Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), updates the references to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits.

Description of the Change EPU LAR Attachment 1, Section 3.1, Item 33, Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specification Changes proposed changes to TS 6.9.1.11, CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR), to revise the references for the COLR to address revised analyses for EPU.

The proposed change to TS 6.9.1.11 is being revised to update the references to the latest documents applicable to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits.

Existing References 21 and 22 and proposed new reference 23 are being revised to read as follows:

21. EMF-2310(P)(A), "SRP Chapter 15 Non-LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," Revision 1, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU -

Information to Support License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

22. EMF-2328(P)(A), "PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5 Based,"

Revision 0, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU - Information to Support License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

23. EMF-2103(P)(A), "Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," Revision 0, as supplemented by ANP-2903(P), "St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1 EPU Cycle Realistic Large Break LOCA Summary Report with Zr-4 Fuel Cladding,"

Revision 1.

Basis for the Change This change incorporates references to the latest documents applicable to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits as approved by the NRC for EPU.

L-2012-132 Attachment 2, Page 2 of 2 No Significant Hazards Consideration These changes are administrative in nature. The changes update the COLR reference list to the latest documents applicable to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits. As such, the conclusions of EPU LAR Attachment 1 Section 5.2, No Significant Hazards Consideration, Item Q., Core Operating Limits Report References, remain valid. Accordingly, the proposed change 1) does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, 2) does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated, and 3) does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Environmental Evaluation These changes are administrative in nature. The changes update the COLR reference list to the latest documents applicable to the analytical methods used to determine the core operating limits. The environmental considerations evaluation contained in the EPU LAR remain valid.

Accordingly, the proposed license amendment is eligible for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is needed in connection with the approval of the proposed license amendment.

L-2012-132

'Attachment 3 ATTACHMENT 3 EXTENDED-POWER UPRATE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES SUBMITTED BY FPL LETTER L-2010-259 Technical Specifications Marked-Up Pages Florida Power & Light St. Lucie Unit 1

-This coversheet plus 5 pages.

(L-2012-132

~INSERT12~ Attachment 3 Page 2 of 6 Allowable Checkerboard Storage Patterns (See Notes 4 and 5)

Pattern "A" Pattern "B" Pattern "C" See Note 1 See Note 2 See Note 3 F H1 12 2 WH FWH 2 NOTES:

1. F represents Fresh Fuel. WH represents an empty cell. Allowable Pattern is Fresh Fuel checkerboarded with empty cells. Diagram is for illustration only.

2. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 1 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least one insert [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA or e* ,;*.vaet (5 absorbr ,ce")] in any one of the 2x2 array locations. Diagram is for illustration only.

3. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. WH represents an empty cell. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 2 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least one empty cell in any of the 2x2 array locations. Diagram is for illustration only.

4. The storage arrangements of fuel within a rack module may contain more than one pattern. Th-re. Wr R '-tF^fa limitationo . within Rcgion Raok between Moduloc rWi.thin ar-ka, hOWeYOC, ea.h ac.. mbl.y mucwit moot th, burup IgulIrmoIVI of caeh 2x2 rmluY that it IVide withi.-

l 5 cells within any pattern are acceptable.

E Empty FIGURE 5.6-1 Aellowable Region I Storage Patterns and Fuel Arrangements ST.LUCIE UNITI56AmnmnNo9+ O3

L-2012-132 INSERT 13 - New Figure Attachment 3 Page 3 of 6 NOTES to Figure 5.6-2

1. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. WH represents an empty cell. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 3 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least one empty cell in any of the 2x2 array locations. Diagram is for illustration only.

2. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 4 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least two inserts, [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA or , (6 ab...be. Fads] in the

,uivale.t 2x2 array. Diagrams are for illustration only.

3. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 5 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is one insert (either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA of q:uialet (5 ab_ ,rber ,eds)) in the 2x2 array.

Diagrams are for illustration only.

4. The storage arrangements of fuel within a rack module may contain more than one pattern. Them re m imtefae limit.tiem. witin Rgi.n 2 between feel mo,-ulee6

• or ,ithin ra,4., hQnWoVr, each aucom*.lyu.t mot the bUrnUP rzgurzmzto ef aseh 2x2 array that it rcaides within.

5. cells within any pattern are acceptable.

Empty Each cell is a part of up to four 2X2 arrays, and each cell must simultaneously meet the requirements of all those arrays of which it is a part.

FIGURE 5.6-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Allowable Region 2 Storage Patterns and Fuel Arrangements ST.LUCIE UNIT 1 5-6d Amendment No. Wa-

SNEW Figure 5.6-3 L-2012-132 Attachment 3 Sheet 2 of 2 Page 4 of 6 NOTES TO Figure 5.6-3

1. WH represents an empty cell. For the interface of Pattern "C" with Region 1, the empty cell must be on the rack periphery facing Region 1 racks. Diagram is for illustration only.

2. For the interface of Pattern "D"with Region 1, at least one cell on the rack periphery facing Region 1 rack must contain an insert (either Metamic of full-length full-strength CEA e. euivent

. -"(

abseberaft) in the 2x2 array. Ifthe insert is Metamic, the insert must be oriented so that the corner of the L-shape is located closest to the Region 1 rack. Diagram is for illustration only.

3. For the interface of Pattern "E" with Region 1, the insert must be on the rack periphery facing the Region 1 rack. The insert may be either a Metamic of full-length full-strength CEA er-eqtiveetfv-

,bsorber r-od,). If the insert is Metamic, the insert must be oriented so that the corner of the L-shape is located closest to the Region 1 rack. Diagram is for illustration only.

A e cells within any pattern are acceptable.

5. There are no interface requirements within Region 1. Any Pattern within Region 1 may be used for the interface. Pattern "B" was used only as an illustration.

113 FIGURE 5.6-3 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Region 2 Interface Requirements with Region 1 ST.LUCIE UNIT 1 5-6f Amendment No.

L-2012-132 INSERT 14 Attachment 3 Page 5 of 6 TABLE 5.6-1 Minimum Burnup as a Function of Enrichment far-No.. -WIanORtON AfSOMbilo Minimum Burnup (GWdlMTUI, Te Cooling Coefficients for Initial Enrichmente Time A B C 1.9 w/o 2.5 wlo 3.0 wlo/ 3.8 wlo 1 years 0.00 9.31 -24.39 0.00 0.00 3. 10.99 2 0y s 0.00 10.51 -22.35 0.00 3.93 17.59 3 0 yearsN 0.00 10.97 -14.71 6.13 12.X7 18.20 26.98 0 years -0 17.00 -21.39 9.43 .55 25.92 37.29 12 years 0.54N 16.2 2 -20.63 8.24 16.55 23.17 33.21 15 years -0.53 111k6 -20.07 . 5 16.27 22.74 32.54 20 years -0.46 15.11 ,8.80,, .5 16.10 22.39 31.98 5 0 years -0.74 17.49 -1765 10.84 19.38 26.09 36.06 5 years -0.56 15.64/ -7 . 10.04 17.95 24.23 33.70 0 years -0.41 1 . 0 -17.97 14. 23.72 31.44 43.37 6 12 years 0.04 13.10 -12.56 12.47 -,20.44 27.10 37.80 s15years 3 12.38 -11.83 12.16 1 . 26.48 37.09 20 years 0.26 11.56 -11.16 11.74 19.37 N 25.86 36.52 0y -0.65 20.08 -16.52 19.29 29.62 331 7 50.40 years -0.65 17.76 -15.58 15.82 24.76 31.85 42.52

/ 15 years -0.43 16.25 -13.84 15.48 24.10 31.04 70 20 years 0.12 12.90 -9.61 15.33 23.39 30.17 41.10 ofafuet bi must exceed the minimum bumup ' )

NOT ES: 'lfuelZtyp~e", the=bumu~p o a f ea~ssem by e c e t e mfi~ni u b m upV "Bs D" L

4-designed amia! Veriationini uran8RWium 235 cniehmcnt to 6entrol the axial burnlup diotribution To qualify ina fuel type, - the e-azuated burnup f a fuel as*embly must exeod the "min ,um burnup" @*Yen in the tabic fer the "aaalinig tome" and "Initial enriehrmzr-, ef the fuel assenbly-.

AltorlnItiVly, for fuel assembly ehareoeteisties between the inoreameiclt depiotId in the table, "mini . u.. "1buRUP" m.ay be calculated by inserting the "coefficients" for the associated "type" and "cooling time" into the polynomial function:

BU = A!9 2 Wri.-G wh&.e: ý A +B*E + C*E, her: u.

BU = Minimum Burnup (GWD/MTU)

2. E = Initial Maximum Planar Average Enrichment (weight percent uranium-235)

A, B, C = Coefficients

• . Interpolation between values of cooling time is not permitted.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 &-6d* Amendment No. 49&.

L-2012-132 Attachment 3 Page 6 of 6 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (continued)

20. EMF-1961(P)(A), "Statistical SetpointlTransient Methodology for Combustion Engineering Type Reactors"

,)I CRAC 'V~AIDg IA 110 "QO 4r, Ki 1 nfA KA 4kA1 f Pressurier VWoter Reaeterse

• A Pl m* AAAA* J A* ll*

• D*

• II

• I I AA A A *E A *m

I

-Based"- I

21. EMF-2310(P)(A), "SRP Chapter 15 Non-LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reiictors,"

Revision 1, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucle Unit I EPU - Information to tSupport License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

22. EMF-2328(P)(A), "PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAPS Based," Revii;Ion 0, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit I EPU - Information to Support License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

23. EMF-2103(PXA), "Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Re;actors,"

Revision 0, as supplemented by ANP-2903(P), "St Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit I EPU Cyc ie Realistic Large Break LOCA Summary Report with Zr-4 Fuel Cladding," Revision 1.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT I 6-19b Amendment No. 4", 4-7-4-,4

L-2012-132 Attachment 4 ATTACHMENT 4 EXTENDED POWER UPRATE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES SUBMITTED BY FPL LETTER L-2010-259 Technical Specifications Clean Pages Florida Power & Light St. Lucie Unit I This coversheet plus 5 pages.

Allowable Checkerboard Storage Patterns (See Notes 4 and 5)

Pattern "A" Pattern "B" Pattern "C" See Note 1 See Note 2 See Note 3 F WH 2 2 WH F WH 2 NOTES:

1. F represents Fresh Fuel. WH represents an empty cell. Allowable Pattern is Fresh Fuel-checkerboarded with empty cells. Diagram is for illustration only.

2. Numbering-denotes fuel assembly type. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 1 is defined -in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least one insert [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA] in any one of the 2x2 array locations. Diagram is for illustration only.

3. Numbering denotes-fuel assembly type. WH represents an empty cell. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 2 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least one empty cell in any of the 2x2 array locations. Diagram is for illustration only.

4. The storage arrangements of fuel within a rack module may contain more than one pattern.

Each cell is a part of up to four 2x2 arrays, and each cell must simultaneously meet the requirements of all those arrays of which it is a part.

5. Empty cells within any pattern are acceptable.

FIGURE 5.6-1 Allowable Region 1 Storage Patterns and Fuel Arrangements ST. LUCIE - UNIT I 5-6b Amendment No. 9-1-,-9

NOTES to Figure 5.6-2 NOTES:

1. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. Minimum burnup requirements for fuel assembly type 3 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least one empty cell in any of the 2x2 array locations. Diagram is for illustration only.

2. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type. Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 4 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is at least two inserts, [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA] in the 2x2 array. Diagrams are for illustration only.

3. Numbering denotes fuel assembly type- Minimum burnup for fuel assembly type 5 is defined in Table 5.6-1. Allowable pattern is one insert, [either Metamic or full-length full-strength CEA] in the 2x2 array. Diagrams are for illustration only.

4. The storage arrangements of fuel within a rack module may contain more than one pattern.

Each cell is a part of up to four 2x2 arrays, and each cell must simultaneously meet the requirements of all those arrays of which it is a part.

5. Empty cells within any pattern are acceptable.

FIGURE 5.6-2 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Allowable Region 2 Storage Patterns and Fuel Arrangements ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 5.-6d Amendment No. 4-93

NOTES to Figure 5.6-3 NOTES:

1. For the interface of Pattern "C" with Region 1, the empty cell must be on the rack periphery facing Region 1 racks. Diagrams are for illustration only.

2. For the interface of pattern "D" with Region 1, at least one cell on the rack periphery facing Region 1 rack must contain an insert (either Metamic of full-length full-strength CEA) in the 2x2 array. If the insert is Metamic, the insert must be oriented so that the corner of the L-shape is located closest to the Region 1 rack. Diagram is for illustration only.

3. For the interface of Pattern "E" with Region 1, the insert must be on the rack periphery facing the Region 1 rack. The insert may be either a Metamic of full-length full strength CEA. If the insert is Metamic, the insert must be oriented so that the corner of the L-shape is located closest to the Region 1 rack. Diagram is for illustration only.

4. Empty cells with any pattern are acceptable.

5. There are no interface requirements within Region 1. Any Pattern within Region 1 may be used for the interface. Pattern "B" was used only as an illustration.

FIGURE 5.6-3 (Sheet 2 of 2)

Region 2 Interface requirements with Region I ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 5--6f Amendment No.

TABLE 5.6-1 Minimum Burnup as a Function of Enrichment Fuel Cooling Coefficients Fpel Time Type (Years) A B C 1 0 -36.6860 22.4942 -1.4413 2 0 -36.1742 16.6000 -0.8958 3 0 -34.7091 23.1361 -1.6204 0 -24.5145 21.3404 -1.2444 2.5 -26.8311 22.5246 -1.5029 4 5 -24.7233 20.9763 -1.3246 10 -23.6285 19.9541 -1.2505 15 -23.5458 19.9336 -1.3180 20 -22.4382 19.2460 -1.2629 0 -8.1856 14.5275 -0.0719 2.5 -11.8506 16.1475 -0.3969 5 5 -16.5196 18.5309 -0.7837 10 -13.6831 16.3475 -0.5844 15 -12.5819 15.6175 -0.5656 20 j -12.6469- 15.4575 -0.5906 NOTES:

1. To qualify in a "fuel type", the burnup of a fuel assembly must exceed the minimum-burnup "BU" calculated by inserting the "coefficients" for the associated "fuel type" and "cooling time" into the polynominal function:

BU = A + B*E + C*E 2 where:

BU = Minium Burnup (GWD/MTU)

E = Maximum Planar Average Enrichment (weight percent uranium-235)

A, B, C = Coefficients

2. Interpolation between values of cooling time is not permitted.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 5-6g Amendment No.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (continued)

20. EMF-1961(P)(A), "Statistical Setpoint/Transient Methodology for Combustion Engineering Type Reactors"

21. EMF-2310(P)(A), "SRP Chapter 15 Non-LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," Revision 1, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU - Information to Support License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

22. EMF-2328(P)(A), "PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5 Based" Revision 0, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU - Information to Support License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

23. EMF-2103(P)(A), "Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology for Pressurized Water Reactors," Revision 0, as supplemented by ANP-2903(P), "St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1 EPU Cycle Realistic Large Break LOCA Summary Report with Zr-4 Fuel Cladding," Revision 1.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 6-19b Amendment No. 4463, 41--1-, 1-94-