ML111750893
| ML111750893 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1984 |
| From: | Giesler C Wisconsin Public Service Corp |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML111750894 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-84-185 NUDOCS 8412040137 | |
| Download: ML111750893 (12) | |
Text
REGULATOPINFORMATION DISTRIBUTION 9TEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION N8R:8412040137 DOC.DATE: 84/11/30 NOTARIZED: YES FACIL:50-305 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, WisconSin Public Servic AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION GIESLER,C.W, Wisconsin Public.Service Corp, RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION DENTONH,R, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Director
SUBJECT:
Application for amend to License DPR-43,revising Tech Specs to change nuclear peaking factor limits.Rev 1 to XN-NF-31
& XN-NF-84-28(P),enclXN-NF-84-28(P) withheld (ref 10CFR2,790),
DOCKET #
05000305 DISTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL 0 SIZE:
'2'4 :
TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution NOTES: ig4on TPike fA-f 19 ;sa 6/ o OL:12/21/73 05000305 RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL NRR ORBI BC
- ap A
7 ACRS 6
ELD/HDS3 NRR/DL DIR S
NRR/DSI/METB RR/iLIRil EXTERNAL: LPDR NSIC 03 05, 1
1 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME 0
1 1
1 tip 1l#
ADM/LFMB NRR/DE/MTEB NRR/DL/ORAB NRR/DSI/RAB RGN3 NRC PDR NTIS COPIES LTTR ENCL 0I 1
1 1
1 1
02 1
1
£fa CI!s To: K.akn is TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR INTERNA 0
1 0
1 1
1p, 26 ENCL 23 L:;
NRC-84-185 WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION P.O. Box 1200, Green Bay, WI 54305 November 30, 1984 Dr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Proposed Amendment No. 64 to the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specification This letter transmits a request and supporting documentation for an amendment to the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specification. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(c) we have enclosed three (3) signed and notorized original transmittal letters, and forty (40) copies of proposed amendment 64.
The amendment requests a change to the nuclear peaking factor limits as a result of analyses performed to address the impact of higher fuel burnup on Exxon Nuclear Company fabricated fuel, and the effect of steam generator tube plugging at the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant.
The following pages are affected by this proposed amendment:
TS 3.10-1 FIGURE TS 3.10-2 TS 3.10-2 FIGURE TS 3.10-6 TS 3.10-3 TS 3.10-10 8412040137 130 TS 3.10-11 PR ADCK 0 50 0 0 3 05 TS 3.10-12 PDR TS 3.10-21 A description of the changes, along with the appropriate safety evaluation and the significant hazards determination is included in Enclosure 1 to this letter. The affected Techni al Specification pages are included in Enclosure 2.
bQo.
00 X
6
Dr;- H. R. Denton W
V No~ember 30, 1984 Page 2 Forty (40) copies of two supporting documents prepared by Exxon Nuclear Company and referenced in the proposed amendment are also enclosed:
- 1) "Kewaunee High Burnup Safety Analysis:
Limiting Break LOCA and Radiological Consequences", XN-NF84-31.
- 2) "Mechanical Design Report Supplement for Kewaunee High Burnup (49GWD/MTU) Fuel Assemblies", XN-NF-84-28(P).
The second report is considered proprietary by Exxon Nuclear Company. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790(b), an affidavit supporting the withholding of the subject material from public disclosure is provided in enclosure 3.
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), a copy of this sub mittal has been transmitted to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
The extension of the burnup limitation of Exxon Nuclear Company fuel will pro vide additional fuel management flexibility resulting in a significant financial benefit to our customers. Therefore, your prompt attention would be appreciated in an effort to implement this amendment prior to the Spring 1985 refueling outage.
A check in the amount of $150 is enclosed as required by 10 CFR 170.12(c).
Very truly yours, Carl W. Giesler Vice President - Power Production DJR/rch Enclosure cc - Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC Mr. S. A. Varga, US NRC Mr. Clarence Riederer, PSCW Subscribed and Sworn to Before e This 14 Day of 84 A
1, I 984 ary Public,, State of Wisconsin My Commission Expires:
June 28, 1987
0 I,
)
2.
. I I I I 20
Dr. H. R. Denton N1-29.3 November 30, 1984 ENCLOSURE 1 Proposed Amendment No. 64 to the KNPP Technical Specification:
Description, Safety Evaluation, and Significant Hazard Determination Section 3.10 Control Rod and Power Distribution Limits TS 3.10.b; page TS 3.10-1, TS 3.10-2 Description of Changes The nuclear heat flux peaking factor (FQ) limits have been changed to reflect the results of recent analyses.( 1,2,3)
Reference 1 describes the results of the Exxon analysis of the limiting break LOCA using their current approved evaluation model.
These results provide the basis for increasing the FQ limit of Exxon fuel from the current value of 2.21 to the proposed value of 2.28.
Reference 2 provides a supplemental analysis to the mechanical design report of Exxon 14 x 14 fuel assemblies to include the effects of fuel rod burnup to 49.0 GWD/MTU. These results, based on Exxon's currently approved methods, have eliminated the need for the burnup dependent FQ penalty (Technical Specification Figure 3.10-6).
In addition, the burnup dependent fuel rod bow penalty, applied to FA H, is no longer required by this analysis for Exxon fuel.
A conservative evaluation by Westinghouse(3) of the impact of steam generator tube plugging resulted in a decrease in FQ from 2.22 to 2.14.
The Exxon analysis described in reference 1, includes the 5% tube plugging effects and no additional changes in FQ are required.
Dr. H. R. Denton
'p November 30, 1984 Page 2 Safety Evaluation The analyses provided in references 1,2, and 3 demonstrate that the pro posed changes will maintain the validity of the fuel design bases and the assumptions and conclusions of the safety analyses remain inviolate. A safety concern does not result from this change because:
- 1) The probability of occurrence or consequence of an accident or malfunc tion of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report is not increased;
- 2) The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the Safety Analysis Report is not created; and
- 3) The margin of safety as defined in the basis for the technical specifi cation is not reduced.
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
Dr. H. R. Denton November 30, 1984 Page 3 TS 3.10-3 Description of the Changes Reference to the power distribution control penalty V(Z) has been changed from figure 3.10-7 to figure 3.10-6 to be consistent with change in the figure numbering sequence caused by the deletion of figure 3.10-6, as discussed previously.
Safety Evaluation Since these changes are purely administrative in nature, they do not involve a safety concern.
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
Page TS 3.10-10 Description of Changes The previous references to the burnup dependent FQ penalty have been deleted and replaced by the current reference to maintain the basis con sistent with the changes to 3.10b pages TS 3.10-1 and TS 3.10-2 described above.
Dr. H. R. Denton November 30, 1984 Page 4 Safety Evaluation Since these changes result from and are consistent with a change described and evaluated above, they are purely administrative in nature and they do not involve a safety concern.
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
TS 3.10-11 Description of Changes The basis has been clarified by the addition of the word "design" in the second paragraph.
Safety Evaluation These changes do not alter the intent of the basis, but merely provides clarification. Therefore, they are strictly administrative in nature and do not involve a safety concern.
Dr. H. R. Denton w
November 30, 1984 Page 5 Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
TS 3.10-12 Description of changes The basis has been modified to reflect the changes made to TS 3.10.b.1.B.
previously described, and to clarify the differentiation of Westinghouse and Exxon fuels with regard to rod bow.
Safety Evaluation These changes do not alter the intent of the basis, but merely provide clarification. Therefore, they are strictly administrative in nature and do not involve a safety concern.
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
Dr. H. R. Denton W
November 30, 1984 Page 6 TS 3.10-21 Description of Changes The references (7), (8), were updated to reflect the current documentation, prepared by Exxon Nuclear Company, which provide the technical justifica tion for this proposed amendment.
Safety Evaluation These changes update the references for consistency with changes described and evaluated above and are therefore administrative in nature and do not involve a safety concern.
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
FIGURE TS 3.10-2 Description of Changes Figure 3.10-2 was revised to reflect the update to TS 3.10.b.1 previously described. The revision to this figure is in accordance with previously accepted techniques.( 4) Past practice normalized the K(Z) curve to the most limiting ECCS result of the respective fuel vendors.( 5) Although the difference in height dependent penalty is small, it is technically more accurate to normalize the K(Z) function to the respective fuel vendor's FQ limit, as was done here.
I..
Dr. H. R. Denton November 30, 1984 Page 7
.Safety Evaluation These changes are consistent with changes evaluated above for which no safety concern was identified, and are similar to changes found acceptable in previous applications.( 4,5)
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
FIGURE TS 3.10-6, FIGURE 3.10-7 Description of Changes Figure 3.10-6 was deleted since the burnup dependent penalty is no longer required by the current analyses. Figure 3.10-7 was renumbered as 3.10-6 for administrative clarity.
Safety Evaluation Since these changes are made for consistency and clarity and are admi nistrative in nature, they do not involve a safety concern.
Significant Hazards Evaluation Based on the above safety evaluation and the guidelines provided in 10 CFR 50.92(c), we have determined that these changes do not represent a signifi cant hazards concern.
Dr. H. R. Denton IW November 30, 1984 Page 8 N1-
29.6 REFERENCES
of Proposed Amendment 64 Letter from C. W. Giesler to H. R. Denton Dated November 30, 1984
- 1. M. S. Stricker, "Kewaunee High Burnup Safety Analysis:
Limiting Break LOCA and Radiological Consequences", XN-NF-84-31 Rev. 1, Exxon Nuclear Company, October 1984.
- 2. N. E. Hoppe, "Mechanical Design Report Supplement for Kewaunee High Burnup (49GWD/MTU) Fuel Assemblies", XN-NF-84-28(P), Exxon Nuclear Company, July 1984.
- 3. Letter to C. R. Steinhardt, Kewaunee Nuclear Plant, from E. V. Somers of Westinghouse, dated August 28, 1984, transmitting "Five Percent Tube Plugging Analysis".
- 4. Letter from A. Schwencer (NRC), to E. W. James (WPSC), dated March 25, 1977, issuing Amendment No. 16 to the Operating License for Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant.
- 5) Letter from R. B. A. Licciardo (NRC) to E. R. Mathews (WPSC) dated April 29, 1982, issuing Amendment No. 41 to the Operating License for Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant.