ML100500800

Conditional Extension of Rod Misalignment TS for Indian Point 3.

ML100500800
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	02/28/1997
From:	Johansen B Westinghouse, Div of CBS Corp
To:
Shared Package
ML100471346	List: ML100471345 ML100471347 ML100500800
References
NUDOCS 9703050241, WCAP-14848
Download: ML100500800 (105)

Text

PROP WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 WCAP- 14848 Conditional Extension of the Rod Misalignment Technical Specification for Indian Point Unit 3 February, 1997 R. J. Fetterman K. R. Robinson Approved:

B. J. Johansen Manager, Core Analysis C

.97030150241 970226 PDR ADCK~ 05000286 P PDR Westinghouse Electric Corporation Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division P.0. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 C 1997 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, All Rights Reserved

p U

- NOTICE THE ATTACHED FILES ARE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE INFORMATION &

RECORDS MANAGEMENT BRANCH.

THEY HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO YOU FOR A LIMITED TIME PERIOD AND MUST BE RETURNED TO THE RECORDS & ARCHIVES SERVICES SECTION, T5 C3. PLEASE DO NOT SEND DOCUMENTS CHARGED OUT THROUGH THE MAIL. REMOVAL OF.

ANY PAGE(S) FROM DOCUMENT FOR REPRODUCTION MUST BE REFERRED TO FILE PERSON~NEL.

- NOTICE -

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 ABSTRACT This report proposes modifying the Technical Specification for allowable rod misalignment from the current +/-12 steps indicated to a maximum of +/-18 steps indicated for core powers greater than 85%

rated thermal power (RTP) depending upon the minimum available peaking factor margin, and +24 steps indicated for core powers less than or equal to 85%. Such a TS change is sought to minimize disruptions to normal plant operations due to erroneous indications of rod misalignment from the Analog Rod Position Indication system (ARPI).

The required margins to the hot rod and hot spot peaking factor (FAH and FQ) limits will be determined by examining the relative changes in t hese peaking factors between similar cases with misalignments of

+12 indicated and cases with additional misalignment. These resulting required margins will be determined such that they are cycle independent for Indian Point 3. It will also be shown that plant safety is not compromised by this Technical Specification change.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTI NGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The- author gratefully acknowledges the following individuals for their contributions to the completion of this report: M. E. Easter, S. B. Fowler, J. M. Freeland, B. J. Johansen and C. R. Tuley.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

................... a.................................... 1

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF ROD CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURES ...................... 3 3.0 ANALYSES SUPPORTING NORMAL OPERATION........................... 5 3.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY.............................................. 5 3.2 CORE MODELS USED FOR ANALYSIS...................................... 6 3.3 MISALIGNMENT CASES ANALYZED ....................................... 6 3.4 ANALYSIS RESULTS, POWER > 85% RTP.................................... 8 3.5 ANALYSIS RESULTS, POWER! 85% RTP.................................... 9 3.6 PROPOSED TECH4NICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES......................... 10 4.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS IMPACTS........................................... 43

5.0 CONCLUSION

S ....................................................... 45 References ................................................................ 47 Appendix ............ ..................................................... 4

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

- WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 3.1 Indian Point Unit 3 Control and Shutdown Rod Configurations By Group and Power Cabinet ................................................. 11 Figure 3.2 Indian Point Unit 3 Control Rod Insertion Limits........................... 13 Figure 3.3 Permissible Increase in Rod Misalignment Vs. Available FAH and FQ Margin ....... 14 Figure A.1I a~c........................................ 51 Figure A.2 Ia,c ................ 52 Figure A.3 Ia,c.... .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. 53 Figure A.4 Ia,c ............... 54 Figure A.5 Ia,c................................... 55 Figure A.6

]a~C ........... 56 Figure A. 7 Iaxc................................... 57 Figure A.8

]a~c .......... 58 Figure A.9[

I]a,c................................... 59 Figure A. 1O0

]a,c ........... 60 Figure A.1I

]axc.................................. 61

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure A. 12 [ ]~.....6 Figure A. 13 [

jaxc.................................... 63 Figure A. 14 [ j~......6 Figure A. 15 [

]a,c.................................... 65 Figure A. 16 []ac.....6 Figure A. 17 [

]a,c......................... 67 Figure A. 18[

]axC .68 Figure A. 19[

]ac....................................... 69 Figure A.20[

]a,c .. . . . . . .70 Figure A.21[

]a,c........................................... 71 Fiur A22[ a,c................... 72 Figure A.23[

ax.................. ....................................... 7 Figure A.24[....................... .... 7

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure A.25 I a~c........................................ 75 Figure A.26 I

]a,c ............ 76 Figure A.27[

]c.................................. 77 Figure A.28[

78 Figure A.29[

]a,c............................................ 79 Figure A.30[

]a,c................ 80 Figure A.3 1[

]a,c............................................ 81 Figure A.32[

]a,c............... 82 Figure A.33[

]a,c............................................ 83 Figure A.34[

]ac................ 84 Figure A.35[

............... ............................... 85 Figure A.36[

86 Figure A.37[

]ax........................ 87

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure A.38 [I

]axc8 .... ...................................................... 8 Figure A.39 [

Ia,c........................ 89 Figure A.40 [

a................................................... 9

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Design Models Used in Rod Misalignment Analyses .......................... 6 Table 3.2 Summary of Misalignment Cases Analyzed ................................ 15 Table 3.3 Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed- 16 Table 3.4 Summary of 15 Step Indicated Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed ................ 27 Table 3.5 Summary of 18 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed ....... 30 Table 3.6 Summary of 21 Step Indicated Pant-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed ....... 34 Table 3.7 Summary of 24 Step Indicated Pant-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed ....... 38

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTI-NGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The current Westinghouse licensing basi§ supports an indicated rod misalignment of +/-12 steps for any rod(s) within a bank from the bank dem and position. As the analog rod position indication system (ARPI) has an uncertainty of 12 steps, the actual misalignment may be as large as +/-24 steps. In most cases, these indicated misalignments arel false readings caused by fluctuations in the temperature of the control rod drive shafts. For example, sIuch fluctuations can occur after rod control cluster assemblies (RCCAs) are withdrawn from the core during startup. However, when an indication of a misalignment does occur, false or otherwise, the reactor operator must take corrective action per the Technical Specifications.

Increasing the maximum allowable indicated misalignment to +/-18 steps (actual misalignment of +/-30 steps) for core powers above 85% rated~ thermal power (RTP) and +/-24 steps (actual misalignment of

+36 steps) for core powers less than or( equal to 85% rated thermal power (RTP) will provide relief to the aforementioned conditions of false misalignment indications from the ARPI. For real misalignments, these misalignment inc Ireases generally yield small but acceptable increases in the hot ptpaigfcos rod~~~~~~ A o n ~~~

an Q. This report will briefly review the feasible single failures of the rod control system that could yield misalignments of single and multiple rods. These feasible single failures will then form the basislIfor the cases analyzed and documented in this report to support the increase in the misalignment permitted by the Technical Specifications.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF ROD CONTROL SYSTEM FAILURES To determine the misalignment cases to be analyzed for this Technical Specification change, an evaluation of the rod control system was performed, drawing from the Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) documented in Reference 1. This evaluation considered single failures within the rod control system logic cabinets, power cabinets and the control rod drive mechanisms (CRDMs).

This evaluation also considered the impacts of the revised current order timing previously documented in Reference 2.

This evaluation has determined that a single failure of the rod control system can result in six categories of failure mechanisms within the system:

A.[

Sa,c.

B.[

1a,c C.[

]ax.

D.[

Sa,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 E.[

Sa,c F.PC[

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3.0 ANALYSES SUPPORTING NORMAL OPERATION For the remainder of this report, the failure mechanisms discussed in Section 2 will be referred to by the letter they are listed as; i.e. failures A through F. When analyzing these failure mechanisms for peaking factor impacts, the following cabinet configurations must be considered:

1. lAC: groups CAI, CC1, SA

2. 2AC: groups CA2, CC2, 5A2

3. 1IBD: groups CB1, CD1, SB1

4. 213D: groups CB2, CD2, SB2

5. SCD: groups SC, SD The above configurations are also illustrated in Figure 3.1. The group nomenclature used to describe the power cabinets is defined as follows: the first letter (C or S) refers to a control or shutdown bank; the second letter (A, B, C or D) refers to the bank; the number (1 or 2) refers to the group number. For example, power cabinet IAC controls group CAl, which is group 1 of control bank A. Power cabinet 2BD controls group SB2, which is group 2 of shutdown bank B. Note that the Indian Point 3 plant does not have a shutdown bank E (SE), which would be the third group of rods in power cabinet SCD.

a,c 3.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The failure mechanism categories described in Section 2 will be analyzed using the USNRC-approved PHOENIX-P/ANC core design system documented in References 3 and 4. For each failure analyzed, calculations are performed for misalignments of +/-24 steps plus additional misalignments and compared to the corresponding non-misaligned reference case.

The FAH and FQ for these cases are calculated and compared[

]axc

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3.2 CORE MODELS USED FOR ANALYSIS ANC models of the Indian To perform the analysis of the possible rod misalignments, two different 9, and represents the current Point 3 core were used. The first model is the currently operating Cycle The second model used is Indian Point 3 licensing basis for fuel products and peaking factor limits.

longer cycle, higher intended to represent a "bounding" future cycle; that is, higher enrichments, in Table 3.1 below:

peaking factors, more burnable absorbers, etc. These two models are summarized Table 3.1: Design Models Used in Rod Misalignment Analyses Future DeinPrmtrCurrent Cycle DesgnParmeerCycle

-Cycle Length (End of Full Power 554 [ a,c Capability, EFPD)

No. of Feed Assemblies 80 []ac No. Feeds Under .Lead Bank 0[

a,c (No. @ w/o U235)

Feed Enrichments 56 @ 4.00[

24 @ 4.40 a~c (No. @ w/o U235)

Axial Blankets (w/o U235) 0.74 Solid [a Burnable Absorbers 6400 IFBA,[

(No. / Type / Length) 120" centered; 416 WABA, 120" centered 1 ~al,c FHLmt1.62

[ ]ac FQLmt2.32 [ a,c 3.3 MISALIGNMENT CASES ANALYZED of cases are analyzed in For the failure mechanism categories listed in Section 2, several distinct subsets ANC. These cases are considered at [

these cases were found Ia,c. Some cases are also examined at other cycle burnups, although in the rod misalignment.

to generally yield less limiting increases in peaking factors from an increase full power (HFP) [

Most of the calculations are performed assuming the reference condition as hot

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

]a~C; the Indian Point 3 RILs are illustrated in Figure 3.2. Several of these cases are repeated at other reference rod conditions above the RILs, and at part power conditions such as 85% and 50% rated thermal power. The subsets of cases analyzed are summarized below:

Sa,c.

2. [

Sa,c.

3. [

Sa,c 4.

Sa,c.

5. I Sax.

6.

Sa,c 7.

Sa,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

8. [

Sa,c The basic analysis approach used in this report proposes dividing the rod misalignment Technical rated thermal Specification into two modes of surveillance: operation at core powers greater than 85%

power (RTP); operation at core powers less than or equal to 85% RTP.

6 steps of For the first mode of surveillance, the specific HFP cases analyzed for an additional are described in misalignment are summarized in Table 3.3. The failure mechanisms listed in Table 3.3 only 3 steps Section 2. Several of the limiting 6 step additional misalignment cases were repeated with performance of the 3 step of additional misalignment (+/-27 steps total) as listed in Table 3.4. The process misalignment cases provide completeness and verify the bounding nature of the evaluation utilized in this report. Results from these two tables are summarized in Table 3.2.

as listed For the second mode of surveillance, additional cases were performed at part power conditions steps total).

in Tables 3.5 through 3.7 for additional misalignments of 6, 9 and 12 steps (30, 33 and 36 rod The results of the 12 additional step cases in Table 3.7 are used to determine an acceptable 6 and 9 step misalignment limit for core powers less than or equal to 85% RTP. The performance of the evaluation misalignment part-power cases provide completeness and verify the bounding nature of the in Table 3.2.

process utilized in this report. Results from these three tables are also summarized 3.4 ANALYSIS RESULTS, POWER > 85% RTP of all A complete description of all cases analyzed is presented in Tables 3.3 through 3.7. A summary change cases analyzed and the limiting results to support the rod misalignment Technical Specifications in the is given in Table 3.2. This data is presented as the change in the peak FAH and FQ for an increase rod misalignment beyond the current licensing basis of +/- 12 steps indicated (+/-24 steps actual).

increase Note that with the current FAH and FQ Technical Specifications, margins to the limits generally as power level decreases:

=H FAH [ + 0.3(l1-P)] (1)

FHFP ~ .

FLIMIT = - . (2) to allow Then, since FAH and FQ margins are usually a minimum at HFP, the amount of margin required based the permissible indicated misalignment to be increased from +/- 12 to +/- 18 steps will be determined in Table 3.2.

on the HFP data for the additional +/-6 step misalignments from Table 3.3 and summarized

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 For all HFP +/-6 step misalignment cases, the 95/95 increases in FAH and FQ are [ I]a~c and [ Ia respectively, and the maximum increases in FAH and FQ are [ I]a~c and [ I]a~c respectively. These results can be conservatively bounded by required FAH and FQ margins of [ ]a~c and [ 1 a~c respectively, for increased rod misalignment of +/-6 steps. Note that these required margins are an increase of [ ]ac and [ ]a'c respectively over the 95/9 5 values and an increase of [ ]a~c and

[ a~c respectively over the observed maximum values for all HFP +/-6 step cases.

Examining the +/-3 step misalignments from Table 3.4, and summarized in Table 3.2, the 95/95 increases in FAH and FQ are [ 1 a,c and [ ]a~c respectively, and the maximum increases in FAH and FQ are [ I]a~c and [ ]a~c respectively. These results can be conservatively bounded by required FAH and FQ margins of [ a,c and [ I]a~c respectively. Note that these required margins are an increase of [ ]a~c and []',c respectively over the 95/95 values as well as the observed maximum values for all +/-3 step cases. The analysis approach of the +/-3 step cases is also conservative in that most of the cases analyzed [ Iaxc were chosen based on which cases provided limiting results in the +/-6 step analysis. [

]ax Therefore, the proposed FAH and FQ margins for an additional 3 steps of misalignment are half of the limits proposed for an additional 6 steps. This would suggest that margin required for an increase in the permissible misalignment for core powers greater than 85% RTP can then be specified as a linear function of the available peaking factor margin, with the misalignment increase being determined from the minimum of the available FAH or FQ margin. The proposed rod misalignment limit for core powers greater than 85% RTP is illustrated in Figure 3.3.

3.5 ANALYSIS RESULTS,) POWER: 85% RTP The +/-6, +/-9 and +/-12 additional step part-power misalignment cases are listed in Table 3.5 through 3.7 respectively, and summarized in Table 3.2. The 95/95 increases in the +6, +9 and +/-12 additional step I]a~c and [ I]axC [ Iax and [ ]ac, and [ I]a~c and [ ax FAH and FQ are [

respectively. The +/-6 additional step part-power 95/95 FAH and FQ increases are only [ 1 a,c and

[ ]a~c respectively, larger than the HEP-only +/-6 additional step increases. However, by 85%

power, the Technical Specification FAH and FQ limits have increased by 4.5% and 17%, respectively, as defined in Equations 1 and 2. [

Ia, the proposed rod misalignment Technical Specification limit of +/-1 8 steps indicated for core powers above 85% RTP can be increased for core powers less than or equal to 85% RTP. At 85% RTP, the peaking factor limit increases of 4.5% in FAH and 17% in FQ [

Iax in FQ due to the additional +/-12 additional steps of rod misalignment. Therefore, the proposed allowable indicated misalignment is +/-24 steps for core powers of 85% RTP or less.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 3.6 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES A graphic representation of the proposed Technical Specification for core powers greater than 85% RTP discussed in Section 3.4 is shown in Figure 3.3. The amount of available margin must be determined at least once every 30 EFPD during normal incore flux map surveillance. For Indian Point 3, the amount of FQ margin will be based on the FQ surveillance methodology (Reference 6), which accounts for any transient and bumnup effects on the measured steady-state FQ. The required peaking factors mqrgins for additional misalignments at core powers above 85% RTP are also summarized below:

For core powers of 85% RTP or less, as discussed in Section 3.5, the allowable indicated rod misalignment will be +/-24 steps. At this amount of misalignment, the increase in the peaking factors relative to the current limit of +/-12 steps is [a,c as defined in Equations 1 and 2 of Section 3.4.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 FIGURE 3.1 Indian Point Unit 3 Control and Shutdown Rod Configuration By Group and Power Cabinet 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 R

Cl2 SB A2 C L~

SE SDD2 -M B I SA2 -L oo scB2 C2D2 C2B2-J SB2 S2 s 4I-G D2 SD 2 S A2 -- AaD D CABINET SCD 2700 CABINET 2AC D CABINET~ 1AC CABINET 2BD DCABINET !BD

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure 3.2 Indian Point 3 Control Rod Insertion Limits 220 180- BANKB 170 160 140 130 110 100 1 0 3 0 5 0 7 ReaiePweMPret

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure 3.3 Permissible Increase in Rod Misalignment Vs. Available FAHl and FQ Margin a,c

WESTI-NGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Table 3.2: Summary of Misalignment Cases Analyzed; Change in Peak FAHl and FQ for Increased Misalignment Beyond

+/-12 Steps Indicated HFP

+/-18 I I]a,c All Powers

+/-1 5

[ ]Ia,c Part Power

+/-18

[ Iaxc Part Power

+/-21

[ ]a~c Part Power

+/-24

[ ]a~c

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet I of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Position FQ IFAH ICurrnt BO AD HFP at176a,c 1 BOL HFP Current A D at 176 2 BOL HFP Curret D Dat 176 4 BOL HFP Future A D at 176 4 BOL HFP Future A D at 176 5 BO L HP Ftr a 8 6 BOL HFP Future D D atl188 7 BOL HFP Future A D at 200 8 BOL HFP Future A D at 212 9 BOL HFP Current A D at 176 10 BOL HFP Current D D at 176 I1I BOL HFP Future A Datl176 12 BOL HFP Future D D at 176

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 2 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Position FAH FQ 13 utur 200 A FP at176a,c 13 HP200 FtureA Da 17 14 2000 HFP Future D D at 176 15 6000 HFP Future A D at 176 16 6000 HFP Future D D at 176 17 MOL HFP Current A D at 176 18 MOL HFP Current D D at 176 19 MOL HFP Future A D at 176 20 MOL HFP Future D D at 176 21 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 22 EOL HFP Current D D at 176 23 EOL HFP Current A D at 188 24 EOL HFP Current D D at 188

00 Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 3 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

RefeenceIncrease for No.e Burnup Power Cycle Mecaismr Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. echaismPosition IFAH FQ 25Crren EL A HP at200a, 25 EOL HFP Current A D at 200 26 EOL HFP Cutre A D at 126 27 IBOL HFP Future A D at 176MM 28 EOL HFP Future D D at 17688

• 29 EOL HFP Future A D at 188 30 EOL HFP Future A D at 188 31 EOL HFP Future A D at 200 33 OL HFP Futre A D at 176 33 BOL HFP Current A D at 176 34 BOL HFP Current D D at 176 35 BOL HFP Current A D at 176

4 of 11)

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet Peaking Factor %

Increase for CaeFiueReference Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps Case Burnup Power Cycle Fecair No. echaismPosition FAH EQ a

BOL HFP Current A D at 176 37 38 BOL HFP Current D Dat 176 39 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 40 EOL HFP Current D D at 176 41 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 42 FOL HFP Current D D at 176 43 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 44 EOL HFP Current D D at 176 45 EOL HFP Current A D at 200 46 BOL HFP Current D D at 200 A D at 200 HFP Current L 47 EOL 48 EOL HFP Current D D at 200

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 5 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Psto FAHl FQ 49 BOL HFP Current A D at 176 50 BOL HFP Current D D at 176 51 600L HFP Cutre A D at 176 52 B000 HFP Cutre D D at 176 53 6000 HFP Future A D at 176 54 6000 HFP Future D D at 176 55 6000 HFP Future A D at 176 56 6000 HFP Future D D at 176 57 MOL HFP Future A D at 176 58 MOL HFP Future D D at 176 59 MDat17 OLHFMFtue

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 6 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Position FQ IFAH EL HF 61Curent Da a7 61 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 62 EOL HFP Current D D at 176 63 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 64 EOL HFP Curre A D at 176 65 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 66 EOL HFP Future D D at 176(*()

67 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 68 BOL HFP Future A D at 176(*()

69 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 70 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 71 EOL HFP Future A D at 176

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 7 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned -Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism___ __ ____

FAH FQ D at 176 c 73 EOL HFP Future A 74 EOL HFP Future D D at 176 75 BOL HFP Current A D at 176 76 BOL HFP Future A D at 176 77 BOL HFP Future A D at 176 78 BOL HFP Future A D at 224(*()

(ARO) 79 BOL HFP Future A D at 224 (ARO) 80 600 f HFP Future A D at 176

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 8 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Position FAH FQ D at 224 c 81 6000 HFP Future A 82 MOL HFP Future A D at 176 83 MOL HFP Future A D at 224 84 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 85 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 86 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 87 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 88 EOL HFP Future A D at 176

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 9 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

RefeenceIncrease for No.e Burnup Power Cycle Mecaismr Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. echaismPosition FAH FQ D at 176 c 89 EOL HFP Future A 90 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 91 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 92 EOL HFP Future A D at 176 93 EOL HFP Future A D at 176(*

94 EOL HFP Future A D at 224 95 BOL HFP Current B D at 176 96 BOL HFP Current B D at 176 97 BOL HFP Current B D at 176 98 BOL HFP Current B D at 176 99 BOL HFP Future B D at 176

11)

Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 10 of Peaking Factor %

Reference .Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Psto FAH FQ ac 100 EOL HFP Future B D at 176 a, 101 EOL HFP Future B D at 176 102 BOL HFP Current C D at 176 103 EOL HFP Future C D at 176 104 BOL HFP Future E D at 176(*

105 BOL HFP Future E D at 188 106 BOL HFP Current E D at 176 107 EOL HFP Future E D at 176 108 BOL HFP Future E D at 176 109 BOL HFP Future F D at 176(*

-Table 3.3: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Hot Full Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 11 of 11)

Peaking Factor %

Increase for Rod(s) Misaligned Additional 6 Steps I FAH FQ Tent F D atl76 ture F D at 176 L factors and increases due to additional steps of misalignment are included in the Appendix of this

Table 3.4: Summary of 15 Step Indicated Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet I of 3)

Peaking Factor %

Increase for CaeFiueReference Rods Misaligned Additional 3 Steps Burnup Power Cycle Fecair Bank Case echaismPosition No.

FAH FQ 112 BOL HFP Current A Datl176 113 BOL HFP Current D D atl176 114 BOL HFP Current A Datl176 115 BOL HFP Current D D at 176 116 BOL HFP Current A D atl176 117 BOL HFP Current D D at 176 118 BOL HFP Future A D at 224 (ARO) 119 BOL HFP Future E D at 176 120 BOL HFP Future F D at 176 121 MOL HFP Future A D at 224

3) 00 Table 3.4: Summary of 15 Step Indicated Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 2 of Peaking Factor %

RefeenceIncrease for Cae Brnp Pwr yl FiueBank Rods Misaligned Additional Steps 3

CaeNo.p Pwe yl Mechanism Position FAH FQ

_________a,c 122 EOL HFP Future D D at 176 -I 123 EOL HFP Future D D at 176 124 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 125 EOL HFP Current D D atl176 126 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 127 EOL HFP Current D D at 176 128 EOL HFP Current A D at 176 129 EOL HFP Future A D atl176 130 BOL 85% Current A D at 176 131 BOL 85% Current D D at 176 132 BOL 85% Current L A Dat 130

Table 3.4: Summary of 15 Step Indicated Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 3 of 3)

Peaking Factor %

RefeenceIncrease for No.e Burnup Power Cycle Mecaismr Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 3 Steps No. echaismPosition FAH FQ 133 BOL 85% Current D D at 130 Mr 134 EOL 85% Current A D at 176 C) 135 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 0

136 EOL 85% Current A D at 176 137 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 C-1

Table 3.5: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 1 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

RefeenceIncrease for No.e Burnup Power Cycle Mecaismr Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 6 Steps 138 BOL 85% Current A D at 176 r 139 B13L 85% Current D D at 176 140 BOL 85% Current A D at 130 141 BOL 85% Current D D at 130 142 BOL 85% Future A D at 224 (ARO) 143 BOL 85% Future E D at 176 E D at 130 85% Future r144 BOL 145 BOL 85% Future F D at 176 146 BOL 85% Future F D at 130

Table 3.5: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 2 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Increase for CaeFiueReference Burnu~pNo. Power Cycle McaimBank Rods Misaligned Additional 6 Steps N. echaismPosition FAH EQ D at 224 a 147 MOL 85% Future A (ARO) 148 EOL 85% Current A D at 200 149 EOL 85% Current D D at 200 150 EOL 85% Current A D at 176 151 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 152 EOL 85% Current A D at 130 153 EOL 85% Current D D at 130 154 EOL 85% Future A D at 176 155 EOL 85% Future D D at 176 156 BOL 85% Future A D at 130 157 EOL 85% Future D D at 130

Table 3.5: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 3 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Mechanism Position IFAH FQ A D at 176 c 158 EOL 50% Current 159 EOL 50% Current D D at 176 160 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 161 EOL 50% Current A D at 24, C at 150 162 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 163 EOL 50% Current A D at 24, C at 150 164 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 165 EOL 85% Current A D at 176 166 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 167 EOL 85% Current A D at 130

Table 3.5: Summary of 18 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 4 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Increase for CaeFiueReference Mechanism Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 6 Steps No. Burnup Power Cycle FAHl FQ 168 EOL 85% Current D D at 130 F c 169 EOL 85% Future D D at 176 170 EOL 85% Future D D at 176 171 EOL 85% Future D D at 130 172 EOL 85% Future D D at 130 173 EOL 85% Future A D at 176 L174 EOL 85% Future A D at 130 NEEEM

Table 3.6: Summary of 21 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 1 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

FaiureReference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Mecaismr Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 9 Steps No. McaimPosition FAHl EQ 175 BOL 85% Current A D at 176 176 BOL 85% Current D D atl176 177 BOL 85% Current A D at 130 178 BOL 85% Current D D at 130 179 BOL 85% Future A D at 224 (ARO)___

180 BOL 85% Future E D at 176 181 BOL 85% Future E D atl130 182 BOL 85% Future F D atl176 183 BOL 85% Future F D at 130

- N

Table 3.6: Summary of 21 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 2 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Increase for CaeFiueReference Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 9 Steps Case Burnup Power Cycle Fecair No. echaismPosition FQ IFAH 184utur OLA 5% at224a,c (ARO) 185 EOL 85% Current A D at 200 186 EOL 85% Current D D at 200 187 EOL 85% Current A D at 176 188 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 189 EOL 85% Current A D atl130 190 EOL 85% Current D D at 130 191 EOL 85% Future A D at 176 192 BOL 85% Future D D at 176 193 EOL 85% Future A D at 130 194 EOL 85% Future D D at 130

Table 3.6: Summary of 21 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 3 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Increase for Reference Additional 9 Steps Case Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Burnup Power Cycle Mechanism No. Position 195 EOL 50% Current A D at 176 196 EOL 50% Current D D at 176 197 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 198 EOL 50% Current A D at 24, C at 150 199 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 200 EOL 50% Current A D at 24, C at 150 201 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 202 EOL 85% Current A D at 176 203 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 204 EOL 85% Current A D at 130

Table 3.6: Summary of 21 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 4 of 4)

- u P ~ 1 T - I Peaking Factor %

Increase for Reference Case Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 9 Steps Burnup Power Cycle Mechanism No. Position 205 EOL 85% Current D D at 130 206 EOL 85% Future D D at 176 207 EOL 85% Future D D at 176 208 EOL 85% Future D D at 130 209 EOL 85% Future D D at 130 210 EOL 85% Future A D at 176 211 EOL 85% Future A D at 130

Table 3.7: Summary of 24 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 1 of 4) 1 Peaking Factor %

Increase for Reference Additional 12 Steps Case Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Burnup Power Cycle Mechanism No. Position 212 BOL 85% Current A D at 176 213 BOL 85% Current D D at 176 214 BOL 85% Current A D atI130 215 BOL 85% Current D D at 130 216 BOL 85% Future A D at 224 (ARO) 217 BOL 85% Future E D at 176 218 BOL 85% Future 1E D at 130 219 BOL 85% Future F D atl176 220 BOL 85% Future F D at 130

Table 3.7: Summary of 24 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 2 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 12 Steps No. Mechanism Psto FAH FQ D at 224 c 221 MOL 85% Future A (ARO) 222 EOL 85% Current A D at 200 223 EOL 85% Current D D at 200 224 FOL 85% Current A D at 176 225 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 226 EOL 85% Current A D at 130 227 EOL 85% Current D D at 130 228 EOL 85% Future A D at 176 229 EOL 85% Future D D at 176(*()

230 EOL 85% Future A D at 130 231 EOL 85% Future D D at 130

of 4)

Table 3.7: Summary of 24 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 3 Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 12 Steps No. Mechanism Psto FAHl FQ A D at 176 a, 232 EOL 50% Current Current D D at 176 (*

233 EOL 50%.

234 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 235 EOL 50% Current A D at 24, C at 150 236 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 237 EOL 50% Current A D at 24, C at 150 238 EOL 50% Current D D at 24, C at 150 239 BOL 85% Current A D at 176 240 EOL 85% Current D D at 176 241 OL5% Current A D at 130

Table 3.7: Summary of 24 Step Indicated Part-Power Rod Misalignment Cases Analyzed (Sheet 4 of 4)

Peaking Factor %

Reference Increase for Case Burnup Power Cycle Failure Bank Rods Misaligned Additional 12 Steps No. Mechanism Position FAH FQ 242 EOL 85% Current D D at 130 243 EOL 85% Future D D at 176 244 EOL 85% Future D D at 176(*

245 EOL 85% Future D D at 130 246 EOL 85% Future D D at 130 247 EOL 85% Future A D at 176(*

248 EOL 85% Future A D at 130(*

() Signifies that plots of peaking factors and increases due to additional steps of misalignment are included in the Appendix of this

-report.

WESTINJGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 4.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS IMPACTS Section 3 discussed the effects of increased misalignment on the normal operation peaking factors.

This section will address the effects on safety analysis inputs used for the reload safety evaluation.

An increase in rod misalignment does not have a significant impact on any of the[

a ~I . An increase in the rod misalignment also will not adversely effect the [or data generated for the evaluation of

[ Ia~c.

Many of the Condition Il transients, such as rod out of position, dropped rod and single rod withdrawal are based on the motion of a control rod or control bank. These are considered fully misaligned rod transients caused by a single failure of the rod control system. Recall from Section 3.0 that a key assumption of the analysis documented in this report is that rod misalignments resulting from a

[ lac need be considered, consistent with the current Westinghouse licensing basis.

Series of [ Ia,c do not need to be considered. Therefore, one does not need to assume a rod misalignment from the [ Iacas a precondition to one of the above mentioned Condition 11 rod misalignment transients; such an assumption would be beyond the [ Ia,c. As such, the proposed changes to the rod misalignment Tech Spec do not have an adverse impact on the safety analysis inputs for these accidents, or the DNB analysis results.

Another possible impact of the increase in the rod misalignment is an increase in the rod insertion allowance (RIA), the worth of the rods at their insertion limits or RILs. The RIA has a direct impact on the available trip reactivity and the shutdown margin (SDM) assumed in several transient analyses including steamline break. The maximum increase in the RIA, and hence largest reduction in the trip worth and SDM, would be due to an entire bank being misaligned in deeper than the RIL, consistent with failure category C described in Section 3.3. However, the available trip worth and SDM also assume that the core is subcritical with an N- 1 rod configuration, where the highest individual worth rod is stuck out of the core, consistent with failure category D. As stated above, rod misalignments resulting from a [

Ia~c. Therefore, for the trip reactivity and SDM one does not need to assume an increase in the RIA due to [ I x In addition, the reduction in available SDM due to the WSR is much greater than the worth that would be lost due to an increase in the MIA. As such, the proposed changes to the rod misalignment Tech Spec do not have an adverse impact on the available trip worth or SDM.

Safety analyses inputs that would be affected by an increase in the allowable misalignment are the rod ejection FQ, the ejected rod worth APEJ, and the available trip worth following a rod ejection.

WESTTNGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 To evaluate the effects of an increased rod misalignment on the rod ejection accident, a cycle depletion with[

SacThis is a conservative assumption since Indian Point 3 historically does not load follow nor operate with D bank deeply inserted.

The rod ejection parameters can be affected by an increased rod misalignment in two ways: a misalignment of any number of RIL rods during the last 30 effective full power days (EFPD) of the rodded depletion; or a misalignment of the RIL rods at HZP prior to the ejection. For the first scenario, ax For both scenarios, misalignments of individual rods, bank groups and entire banks were considered to determine the limiting effects on FQ and APEJ. Calculations were also performed for both cycles described in Section 2, assuming either an additional 6 steps of rod misalignment during the last 30 EFPD of the HFP rodded depletion or an additional 12 steps of rod misalignment at the HZP RIL.

Results of these calculations show maximum increases of [ c in FQ and [ c in APEJ for the current cycle and [ I in FQ and [ ]a in APEJ for the future cycle. Again, recall that the future cycle has a feed assembly under all 9 of the RCCAs in the lead control bank D and the current cycle has none. As such, the future cycle yields larger non-misaligned values for the ejected rod FQ and APEJ.

Both cycles also yield similar absolute increases in the ejected rod FQ and APEJ. Since the factors of conservatism to address the impacts of increased rod misalignment on rod ejection are multiplicative, or relative increases, the cycle with the lower absolute values will tend to yield the larger increases. Then for application of this Technical Specification change, [

I]ax.

The safety analysis of the rod ejection transient also assumes a certain amount of available trip worth following the rod ejection. Since the ejected rod is assumed to damage a neighboring RCCA drive housing, the trip worth for this transient is defined as the change in core reactivity between the HZP, RIL condition and the HZP, all rods inserted (ARI) minus the ejected rod and the neighboring rod. For this part of the rod ejection transient, the limiting misalignment will be the [

IaxC; recall from Figure 3.2 that the HZP RILs permit both control banks D and C to be fully inserted. Inserting[

]a~c Then for application of this Technical Specification, the trip worth available following a rod ejection calculated as part of the reload safety evaluation [

I]ax. The [ ]a~ pcm is approximately [P~c than the maximum calculated value for either cycle.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3

5.0 CONCLUSION

S An extension of the allowable indicated rod misalignment of +/- 12 steps to +/- 18 steps may be permitted for core powers above 85% RTP as long as it is demonstrated that sufficient peaking factor margin is available. To increase the allowable indicated misalignment by 6 steps for operation above 85% of rated thermal power, [ ]a~ FQ margin and [ ]a~ FAH margin must be available. The amount of required margin is also linearly dependent upon the amount of additional misalignment desired, as shown in Figure 3.3 and summarized below:

Indicated misalignments of up to 24 steps are also permitted for all powers of 85% RTP or less.

The analysis documented in this report has been performed such that the above mentioned excess peaking factor margin required for additional indicated rod misalignment is[

Sa,c.

The analysis documented in this report is conservative and appropriate based on the following assumptions on rod insertion:

• The rod insertion limits (RILs) shown in Figure 3.2 determine the maximum bank demand position as a function of core power;

• The all rods out (ARO) demand position can be as deep as [ acwhich corresponds to the top of the active fuel stack for the Indian Point 3 Cycle 9 feed fuel assemblies.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY GLASS 3 The results of this report are also conservative and appropriate for any future change in the RILs that would reduce the maximum allowable rod insertion and for any ARO position above [

Ia~c. Any future change to the RILs or the ARO position that would permit deeper rod insertion would also require an evaluation of the results of this report.

As part of the reload specific safety evaluation, design calculations will include the following additional conservatisms to bound the maximum increases in rod misalignment any time during the cycle:

]a,c a,c

]a~c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 RIEFERIENCES

1. Shopsky, W. E., FailureMode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) of the Solid State Full Length Rod Control System, WCAP-8976, Rev. 0 (Non-Proprietary Class 3), August 1977.

2. Baker, T., et. al., Rod Control System Evaluation Program, WCAP-13864, Revision 1-A (Non Proprietary Class 3), November 1994.

3. Nguyen, T. Q., et. al., Qualification of the PHOENIX-P/ANC Nuclear Design System for Pressurized Water Reactor Cores, WCAP- 1596-P-A (Westinghouse Proprietary), June 198 8.

4. Liu, Y. S., et. al., ANC: A Westinghouse Advanced Nodal Computer Code, WCAP-1I0965-P-A (Westinghouse Proprietary), December 1985.

5. Morita, T. et. al., Topical Report - Power Distribution Control and Load Following Procedures, WCAP-8385 (Westinghouse Proprietary), September 1974.

6. Miller, R. W. et. al., Relaxation of ConstantAxial Offset Control - FQ Surveillance Technical Specification, WCAP- 10216-P-A, Revision 1, February 1994.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 APPENDIX This section provides some additional detail to the cases highlighted in Tables 3.3 and 3.7. These cases yielded the limiting increase in FAH, FQ or both. The following figures provide the misaligned peaking factors compared to the reference non-misaligned case, and the percent differences relative to 24 steps of total misalignment (+/- 12 steps indicated). Data in these figures are provided as a function of axial offset, covering the maximum expected range for Indian Point 3. The data summarized in Tables 3.3 through 3.7 represents the maximum points from these figures.

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 "This page intentionally blank."

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.1 ... a,c a

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.2

.. a~c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.3

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.4 I

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.5__ -

• a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.6

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.7

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.8 a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.9 .,a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.10 a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.11 _"__3

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.12 c

- U

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.13 a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.14 _

-a~c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.15ac

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.16

- a.)c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.17 a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.18 c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A. 19 -~a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.20ac

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.21 a__

WESTiNGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.22 I

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.23__

- ~ *a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.24 ... a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.25

• .a.)c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.26

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.27 c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.28__ -

• a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.29 *a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure -A.30 a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.31 _

- ,* a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.32ac

- 82

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.33 - a.)c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.34

.. a.)c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.35 a,c

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.36ac

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.37 a,c 87

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.38

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.39 89

WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 3 Figure A.40ac

Westinghouse Commercial Nuclear Fuel Division P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355