LR-N14-0074, License Amendment Request to Revise Power Distribution Limits for Axial Flux Difference and Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor

License Amendment Request to Revise Power Distribution Limits for Axial Flux Difference and Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor

ML14083A439
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	03/24/2014
From:	Jamila Perry Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
LAR S14-01, LR-N14-0074
Download: ML14083A439 (27)

Text

PSEG Nuclear LLC P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038-0236 MAR 2 4 2014 1 0 CFR 50.90 LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-0 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555-000 1 Salem N uclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and 75 NRC Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-3 1 1

Subject:

License Amendment Request to Revise Power Distribution Limits for Axial Flux Difference and Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor In accordance with 1 0 CFR 50. 90, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) hereby requests an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and 75 for Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2 . In accordance with 1 0 CFR 50.91 (b )(1 ) a copy of this request for amend ment has been sent to the State of New Jersey.

The proposed change wou ld revise Surveillance Requirements (SR) 4.2. 1 . 3, 4. 2. 1 .4, and 4.2.2.2.f associated with Power Distribution Lim its Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.2. 1 , "Axial Flux Difference (AFD)" and TS 3/4.2.2, "Heat Flux H ot Channel Factor-F0(Z)".

The proposed SR changes eliminate or relocate i nformation that is considered to be (i) an inaccuracy or (ii) an u nnecessary level of detail. The proposed changes are consistent, as applicable, with Section 36 of Part 50 of Title 1 0 of the Code of Federal Regulations (1 0 CFR 50.36) and N U REG- 1 431 , "Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision

4. 0."

The proposed change has been evaluated in accordance with 1 0 CFR 50.91 (a)(1 ) using the ,

criteria in 1 0 CFR 50. 92(c), and it has been determined that this request involves no significant hazards consideration . to this letter provides an evaluation supporting the proposed changes. The marked-up TS pages, with the proposed changes indicated , are provided in Attachment 2 to this letter. Attachment 3 provides, for information only, proposed changes to the TS Bases.

Page 2 LR-N 1 4-0074 1 0 CFR 50.90 These proposed changes have been reviewed by the Plant Operations Review Committee.

PSEG requests NRC approval of the proposed License Amendment within one year of submittal to be implemented within 60 days of issuance.

If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. Lee Marabella at (856) 339-1 208.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on _ _tJ_'?::::.j

. ...-=:-Y .

Dt....

/ L-/;.l.oi'J;"-o \,_"\.._

(Date)

Respectfully, c;r.

John F. Perry ** (7 Site Vice President Salem Generating Station Attachments:

1. Req uest for Changes to Technical Specifications

2. Technical Specification Pages with Proposed Changes

3. Technical Specification Bases Pages with Proposed Changes ( Information Only)

C. Mr. W. Dean, Administrator, Region I, N RC Mr. J. H ughey, Project M anager, N RC NRC Senior Resident I nspector, Salem Mr. P. Mulligan , Manager IV, NJBNE Mr. L . Marabella, Corporate Commitment Tracking Coordinator Mr. T. Cachaza, Salem Com mitment Tracking Coord inator

LR- N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 SALEM GENERATING STATION REN EWED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NO. 50-272 AND 50-31 1 REQU EST FOR CHANGES TO TECH N I CAL SPECI FICATIONS Request to Revise Power Distribution Limits for Axial Flux Difference and Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor Table of Contents 1 . 0 DESCRI PTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . 0 PROPOSED CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.0 BACKGROU ND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .... . 4 4.0 TECH N I CAL ANALYS IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.0 REGU LATORY ANALYS IS . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . 1 1 5 . 1 No Significant Hazards Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1 1 5.2 Applicable Reg ulatory Req uirements and Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 1 3 6.0 ENVIRONM ENTAL CONSIDERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1 4

7.0 REFERENCES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 Page 1

LR-N 1 40074 LAR S 1 4-01

1.0 DESCRIPTION

This license amendment req uest proposes changes to the following three Surveillance Req u i rements (SR) associated with Power Distribution Limits Technical Specification (TS) 3/4. 2. 1 , "Axial Flux Difference (AFD)" and TS 3/4.2.2, "Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor-F0(Z)":

1. SR 4.2. 1 . 3

2. S R 4.2. 1 .4

3. S R 4.2.2.2.f The proposed SR changes eliminate or relocate information that is considered to be (i) an inaccuracy or (ii) an unnecessary level of detail. The proposed changes are consistent, as applicable, with Section 36 of Part 50 of Title 1 0 of the Code of Federal Reg ulations ( 1 0 CFR 50.36) and N UREG-1 431 , "Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision 4.0." Details on each SR are discussed below.

SR 4 . 2 . 1 . 3 involves the measurement of the target flux d ifference in accordance with the Surveil lance Freq uency Control Program. Currently the SR states that the target flux d ifference shall be determined for each OPERABLE excore channel. However target flux difference is accomplished by measu ring the power d istribution when the core is at equilibrium xenon conditions; it is determined for the entire core, not for each excore channel . Therefore, consistent with N U REG-1 431 it is proposed to eliminate the inaccurate reference to "of each OPERABLE excore channel" and revise the information in the TS Bases.

SR 4.2. 1 .4 involves u pdating the target flux difference in accordance with the Surveillance Freq uency Control Program and includes information on how to determine the target flux d ifference; by either determining the target flux d ifference per SR 4.2. 1 .3 or by linear interpolation between the most recently measured val ue and 0 percent (note Unit 2 states:

"0%") at the end of the cycle life. This information is (1 ) considered to be an unnecessary level of detai l in the SR and (2) inconsistent with the design bases information in the Salem UFSAR and in NU REG-1 431 TS Bases. Therefore, consistent with N U REG- 1 43 1 , it is proposed to revise and relocate this information to the TS Bases.

SR 4.2. 2.2.f identifies the peaking factor (Fxy) axial exclusion zones; specifically the core plane reg ions that are not applicable to the Fxy peaking factor limit req uired by SR 4.2.2.2.e. Currently SR 4.2 .2 .2.f lists the lower core reg ion, upper core region, fuel grid planes, and D bank axial exclusion zones for the Fxy peaking factors that are currently maintained in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) per TS 6 . 9. 1 . 9. This i nformation is considered to be an unnecessary level of detai l in the SR. The proposed change will relocate the axial exclusion zones in SR 4.2.2.2.f to the TS Bases which is consistent with the guidance in N UREG-1 43 1 for plants that utilize Constant Axial Offset Control (CAOC) and Fxy methodology.

2.0 PROPOSED CHANGE

The p roposed TS/SR changes a re described below and are indicated on the marked up TS pages provided in Attachment 2 of this submittal. Proposed changes to the TS Bases are provided in Attachment 3 for info rmation only; changes to the affected TS Bases pages will be incorporated i n accordance with TS 6. 1 7 (Unit 1 ) and TS 6. 1 6 (Unit 2), "Technical Specification (TS) B ases Control Program".

Page 2

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 1 . SR 4.2. 1 . 3 is revised as follows:

The text referring to 'of each OPERABLE excore channel' is being deleted as shown below:

The target flux difference of each OPERABLE excore channel shall be determi ned by measurement in accordance with the Surveillance Freq uency Control Program. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

This change will remove inaccurate detail from the SR; target flux difference is determ ined for the entire core, not for each excore channeL The TS Bases will be revised consistent with NU REG- 1 431 to provide accurate details on measurement of target flux difference.

2 . SR 4.2 . 1 .4 is revised a s follows:

The information on how to update the target flux difference is being deleted as shown below:

The target flux d ifference shall be u pdated in accordance with the Surveillance Freq uency Control Program by either determining the target flux diff erence pursuant to 4.2.1.3 above or by linear interpolation between the most recently measured value and 0 percent at the end of the cycle life. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

Note: Unit 2 states the following and will be updated similar to U nit 1 .

The target flux d ifference shall be updated i n accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program by either determining the target flux diff erence pursuant to 4.2.1.3 above or by linear interpolation between the most recently measured value and 0% at the end of the cycle life. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

This change will remove an u nnecessary level of detail in the SR. In addition, the detail proposed for deletion is inconsistent with the design bases information in the Salem UFSAR and in N U REG-1 43 1 TS Bases. Therefore, consistent with NU REG-1 431 , it is proposed to revise and relocate this information to the TS Bases.

3 . SR 4.2. 2.2.f is revised a s follows:

The Fxy peaking factor (Fxy) axial exclusion zones will be deleted and relocated to the TS Bases as shown below:

The Fxy limits of e, above, are not applicable in the follmving to the excluded core plane regions as measured in percent of core heig ht from the bottom of the fuel.

1. Lmver core region from 0 to 15% inclusive.

2. Upper core region from 85 to 100% inclusive.

3. Grid plane regions at 17.8 + 2%, 32.1 + 2%, 46. 4 + 2%, 60. 6 + 2% and 74.9 + 2%

inclusive.

Page 3

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01

4. Core plane regions within +/- 2% of core height(+ 2.88 inches) about the bank demand position of the bank "D" control rods.

Note: U nit 2 states the following and will be u pdated sim ilar to U nit 1 .

The Fxy limits of e., above, are not applicable in the follmNing to the excluded core plane reg ions as measured i n percent of core height from the bottom of the fuel.

1. Lmver core region from 0% to 15%, inclusive.

2. Upper core region from 85% to 100%, inclusive.

3. Grid plane regions at 17.8% + 2%, 32. 1% + 2%, 46. 4% + 2%,60.6% + 2%, and 74.9% + 2%, inclusive.

4. Core plane regions within + 2% of core height(+ 2.88 inches) about the bank demand position of the bank "D" control rods.

This change will remove a n u nnecessary level of detail in the SR. The TS Bases will be revised consistent with N U REG-1 431 to provide an accurate detail on exclusion zones.

3.0 BACKGROUND

During a red uced power event at Salem, a determination of the target Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at End of Life (EOL) was performed and yielded a target AFD noticeably different from the current target AFD. Through the corrective action program , it was determined the discrepancy in target AFD was attributed to interpolating between the most recently measured AFD value and 0 percent at the end of cycle life, as req uired by SR 4.2. 1 .4. A review of other plants' TS 1 was performed which revealed target AFD interpolation was based on a predicted value at end of cycle life instead of a constant 0 percent. A review of the Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR Section 4. 3.2 .2.6) indicated that a pred icted value should be used for reload cycles when determining target AFD at EOL. The review also identified that U FSAR Section 4.3.2 . 2.6 is consistent with the TS Bases for AFD in NU REG-1 431 that states:

"linear interpolation between the most recent measurement of the target flux differences and a predicted end of cycle value provides a reasonable update because the AFD changes due to burn up tend toward 0% AFD. When the predicted end of cycle AFD from the cycle nuclear design is different from 0%, it (the prediction) may be a better value for the interpolation."

The proposed change to SR 4.2. 1 .3 is a clarification to how target flux d ifference is measured and is consistent with N U REG-1 431 . The change is associated with the change to SR 4.2. 1 .4 in that both issues were identified i n Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF)-24, "Delete the details on u pdating the target flux d ifference". TSTF-24 deleted the inaccuracy in SR 4.2. 1 . 3 a n d deleted the i nformation in SR 4.2. 1 .4 o n how to determine the target flux d ifference since it was already in the N U REG-1 431 TS Bases. The elements of TSTF-24 were incorporated into Surveillance Requirements of other Westinghouse plants, e.g.; South Texas Units 1 & 2 (Amendment No. 188 and 175, respectively) V.C. Summer Unit 1 (Amendment No. 75), and Millstone Unit 3 (Amendment No. 60).

Page 4

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 N U REG-1 431 by Revision 2 (for the SR 4.2. 1 . 3 change) and Revision 2.2 (for the SR 4.2. 1 . 4 change2) . .

The proposed change to SR 4.2.2.2.f associated with the Fxy peaking factor is consistent with N U REG-1 43 1 for plants that utilize Constant Axial Offset Control (CAOC) and Fxy methodology, such as Salem . This change wil l remove an unnecessary level of detail in the SR, and the TS Bases will be revised consistent with NU REG-1 431 to provide an accurate level of detail on exclusion zones.

4.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

1. S R 4.2.1 .3 The req uirements of SR 4.2. 1 . 3 and 4.2 . 1 . 4 were the subject of TSTF-24 and the changes identified in the TSTF were subseq uently incorporated into NU REG-1 431 as d iscussed in Section 3.0 a bove. The changes proposed to SR 4.2. 1 .3 were derived from the changes d iscussed in the TSTF. Specifically the text referring to 'of each OPERABLE excore channel' is being deleted as the target flux difference is determ ined for the entire core, not for each excore channel. N U REG-143 1 TS Bases for SR 3.2. 3. 3 states: "Measurement of the target flux difference is accomplished by taking a flux map when the core is at equilibrium xenon conditions, preferably at high power levels with the control banks nearly withdrawn. This flux map provides the equilibrium xenon axial power distribution from which the target value can be determined. The target flux difference varies slowly with core burnup." Therefore, the AFD is not determined for each excore channel, b ut for the entire core. The Salem Bases for TS 3/4. 2. 1 currently contain an eq uivalent statement for measurement of target flux difference:

"Target flux difference is determined at equilibrium xenon conditions (Note Unit 2 states: "with part length control rods withdrawn from the core"). The full length rods may be positioned within the core in accordance with their respective insertion limits and should be inserted near their normal position for steady state operation at high power levels." Therefore, the arg ument i n TSTF-24 for deletion of this text applies to the Salem SR.

1 0 CFR 50. 36, "Technical Specifications" identifies the requirements for the Technical Specification categories for operating power plants: (1 ) Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings, (2) Limiting conditions for operation, (3) Surveillance requirements, (4) Design features, (5) Administrative controls, (6) Decommissioning, (7) Initial notification, and (8) Written Reports. For Surveillance req uirements 1 0 CFR 50.36 states:

"Surveillance requirements are requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditions for operation will be met." To ensure the proposed changes to SR 4.2. 1 .3 and SR 4.2. 1 .4 com ply with 1 0 CFR 50.36, an eq uivalency com parison of Salem TS 3/4. 2 . 1 to N U REG-1 43 1 TS 3.2.3A was performed to ensure that revising Salem SR 4.2. 1 .3 and SR 4.2. 1 .4 consistent with the N U REG is acceptable and that the LCO wil l continue to be met. The com parison is provided in Table 1 below.

2 Salem has not converted to NUREG-1431 improved TS therefore the Salem SR numbering is different than in the TSTF: Salem SR 4.2.1.4 is equivalent to TSTF-24 SR 3.2.3.3; Salem SR 4.2.1.3 is equivalent to TSTF-24 SR 3.2.3.4. Also note that the NUREG-1431 subsequently renumbered SR 3.2.3.3 to 3.2.3.2 and SR 3.2.3.4 to 3.2.3.3.

Page 5

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR 81 4-01 Table 1 - TS Comparison for SR 4.2 . 1 . 3 and S R 4.2. 1 .4 NUREG-1431 TS 3.2.3A Salem TS 3/4.2.1 Result LCO a. AFD Shall be maintained The indicated AXIAL FLUX Equivalent within the target band about the DIFFERENCE (AFD) shall be except for item target flux difference. The maintained within the target band c of NUREG-target band is specified in the about the target flux difference as 1431. (see COLR. specified in the CORE OPERATING Applicability LIMITS REPORT (COLR). comparison)

b. May deviate outside the target band with THERMAL Note: the following are the ACTION POWER< 90% RTP but ;::: 50% statements.

RTP,* provided AFD is within the acceptable operation limits a. With the indicated AXIAL FLUX and cumulative penalty DIFFERENCE outside of the limits deviation time is::; 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> specified in the COLR and with during the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. THERMAL POWER:

The acceptable operation limits are specified in the COLR. 1. Above 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER, within

c. May deviate outside the 15 minutes:

target band with THERMAL POWER< 50% RTP. a) Either restore the indicated AFD to within the target band limits, or b) Reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER.

2. Between 50% and 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER:

a) POWER OPERATION may continue provided:

1) The indicated AFD has not been outside of the limits specified in the COLR for more than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> penalty deviation cumulative during the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and

2) The indicated AFD is within the limits specified in the COLR.

Otherwise, reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 50% of RATED THERMAL POWER within 30 minutes and reduce the Power Range Neutron Flux-High Trip Setpoints to::; 55% of RATED THERMAL POWER within the next 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

Page 6

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 NUREG-1431 TS 3.2.3A Salem TS 3/4.2.1 Result LCO b ) Surveillance testing of the Power Range Neutron Flux Channels may be performed pursuant to Specification 4.3.1.1.1 provided the indicated AFD is maintained within the limits specified in the COLR. A total of 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> operation may be accumulated with the AFD outside of the target band during this testing without penalty deviation.

b.THERMAL POWER shall not be increased above 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER unless the indicated AFD is within the limits specified in the COLR and ACTION a. 2 a )1 ) above has been satisfied.

c.THERMAL POWER shall not be increased above 50% of RATED THERMAL POWER unless the indicated AFD has not been outside of the limits specified in the COLR for more than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> penalty deviation cumulative during the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Applicability MODE 1 with THERMAL MODE 1 ABOVE 50% RATED Delta POWER> 15% RTP. THERMAL POWER.

Actions D. Required Action and NA- No Action to reduce Actions associated Completion Time for THERMAL POWER to less than equivalent or Condition C not met. 15% RTP. conservative D.1 Reduce THERMAL except Action POWER to< 15% RTP. D of NUREG-1431.

SR SR 3.2.3.1 Verify AFD is within SRs contain additional detail that is Proposed limits for each OPERABLE in the NUREG TS Bases: change will excore channel. maintain 4.2.1.1 The indicated AXIAL FLUX equivalency.

SR 3.2.3.2 Update target flux DIFFERENCE shall be determined difference. to be within its limits during POWER OPERATION above 15% of RATED SR 3.2.3.3 Determine, by THERMAL POWER by:

measurement, the target flux difference. a. Monitoring the indicated AFD for each OPERABLE excore channel:

Note: the remaining SR 4.2.1.1 information has been omitted from this table.

Page 7

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01 NUREG-1431 TS 3.2.3A Salem TS 3/4.2.1 Result SR 4.2.1.2 The indicated AFD shall be considered outside of its limits when at least 2 of 4 or 2 of 3 OPERABLE excore channels are indicating the AFD to be outside of the target band.

Note: the remaining SR 4.2.1.2 information has been omitted from this table.

4.2.1.3 The target flux difference ef easl:l GPRABb e*GeFe GRaRRel shall be determined by measurement in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

4.2.1.4 The target flux difference shall be updated in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program ey eitReF EleteFFRiRiR§j tl:le taFset fll::l* Eli#eFeRGe FJl::lF Sl::laRt te 4 .2. .3 aeeve GF BJ' liA88F iAt8FJ3GiatieR eet1N88A tJ:le FR8St F8G8Atly FR88Sl:JF8tl vall::le 8AEI Q FJerceRt at tl:le eAt! ef tl:le syGie life.

The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

Table 1 identifies one d ifference for the Applicabil ity and subseq uent additional related Action D from N U REG- 1 43 1 ; an expanded RTP range that applies to the TS. This d ifference does not alter the basis for the changes to SR 4.2. 1 .3 and SR 4.2. 1 .4. By not incorporating Action D from N U REG-1 431 into the Salem TS, TS 3. 0. 3 wou ld apply if Action C (equivalent to Salem TS 3/4.2. 1 Action a.2. a.2) was not met. Therefore, the proposed change continues to comply with 1 0 CFR 50. 36.

Table 1 above was based on the TS wording from Unit 1 . The TS wording for Unit 2 is similar to U nit 1 and comparison resu lts for U nit 2 would be identical to those above in Table 1 .

2. SR.4. 2. 1 .4 The req ui rements of SR 4.2. 1 .3 and 4.2. 1 .4 were the subject of TSTF-24 and the changes identified i n the TSTF were subseq uently incorporated into N U REG-1 431 as discussed in Section 3. 0 above. The changes proposed to SR 4.2. 1 .4 align with the changes d iscussed in the TSTF as d iscussed below.

Page 8

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 SR 4.2. 1 .4 currently requires that the target flux difference shall be updated in accordance with the Surveil lance Freq uency Control Program by linear interpolation between the most recently measured val ue and 0 percent (note Unit 2 states: "0%") at the end of the cycle life. The proposed change will (a) relocate to the TS Bases the details on how target flux is determined and (b) also revise these details.

(a) The change to relocate the details to the TS Bases is consistent with TSTF-24. The detail in the TS was relocated as it constituted an unnecessary level of detail in the SRs and because the NU REG- 1 431 TS Bases contained more information, and a more accurate description, of how the target flux d ifference is to be determined.

(b) In add ition to relocating the details, the d etails will also be revised consistent with NU REG- 1 43 1 . N U REG-1 431 TS Bases for this SR 3.2.3.2 states, "Alternatively, linear interpolation between the most recent m easurement of the target flux differences and a pred icted end of cycle value provides a reasonable update because the AFD changes due to burn u p tend toward 0% AFD. When the predicted end of cycle AFD from the cycle nuclear design is different from 0%, it (the prediction) m ay be a better value for the interpolation ."

The N U REG-1 431 TS Bases allows for use of the p redicted end of cycle AFD whereas the current detail in the Salem TS uses 0 percent (note Unit 2 states: "0%") at end of cycle life. The use of predicted end of cycle AFD for Salem is supported by the current Salem desig n basis in U FSAR Section 4.3.2.2.6:

UFSAR 4.3.2.2.6 Limiting Power Distribution "The axial power distribution procedures referred to above are part of the required operating procedures which are followed in normal operation. They require control of the axial offset (flux difference divided by fractional power) at all power levels within a permissible operating band of a target value corresponding to the equilibrium full power value. In the first cycle, the target value changes from about -10 percent to 0 percent linearly through the life of the cycle. Target values in a reload cycle vary based on previous cycle length and number of fresh assemblies.

These cycle-specific target values are available in the appropriate NDR (see Section 4.5).

This minimizes xenon transient effects on the axial power distribution since the procedures essentially keep the xenon distribution in phase with the power distribution."

Note: the N uclear Design Report (NOR) documents core physics characteristics for plant startup testing and plant operation. Typical information found in the NOR includes the fuel loading pattern , power distributions, reactivity coefficients, control rod worths ,

kinetics parameters, isotopic inventories, and the like.

Finally, to ensure the proposed change to SR 4.2. 1 .4 com plies with 1 0 CFR 50.36 an equivalency com parison of Salem TS 3/4.2. 1 to NUREG-1 431 TS 3.2.3A was performed as d iscussed above for the SR 4.2 . 1 . 3 change; the comparison concluded that revising Salem SR 4.2 . 1 . 4 consistent with N U REG- 1 431 is acceptable and that the LCO will continue to be met.

The p roposed change continues to comply with 1 0 CFR 50. 36.

Page 9

LR-N 1 4-007 4 LAR 81 4-01

3. SR 4.2.2.2.f The change proposed to S R 4.2.2.2.f is consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1 43 1 for plants that utilize Constant Axial Offset Control (CAOC) and Fxy methodology. The relocation of the exclusion zones listed in SR 4.2.2.2.f to the TS Bases is consistent with NU REG-1 431 (TS 3 .2 . 1 A); these exclusions zones are listed in the NUREG-1 431 TS Bases.

To ensure the proposed change to SR 4.2.2.2.f complies with 1 0 CFR 50.36, an equivalency com parison of Salem TS 3/4.2.2 to N U REG-1 431 TS 3.2. 1 A (CAOC-Fxy Methodology) was performed to ensure that revising Salem SR 4.2.2.2.f consistent with NUREG-1 431 is acceptable and that the LCO will continue to be met. The com parison is provided in Table 2 below.

Table 2- TS Companson for SR 4.2.2.2.f NUREG-1431 TS 3.2.1A Salem TS 3/4.2.2 Result LCO F0(Z) shall be within the limits F0(z) shall be limited by the Equivalent, with specified in the COLR. following relationships: the limiting relationships in FRTP the Salem TS F0(z) s:; T *K(z) versus the TS for P > 0.5, Bases (the and relationship parameters are F0(z)S:: FRTP5° *K(z) maintained in O

• for P::; 0.5, the COLR).

Note: the remaining LCO information has been omitted from this table.

Applicability MODE 1 MODE 1 Equivalent Action A.1 Reduce THERMAL a. Reduce THERMAL POWER at Equivalent with POWER:::: 1% RTP for each least 1% for each 1% F0(Z) the completion 1% F0(Z) exceeds exceeds the limit within 15 minutes time for A.2 is limit. and similarly reduce the Power more AND Range Neutron Flux-High Trip conservative for A.2 Reduce Power Range Setpoints within the next 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />; Salem (4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> Neutron Flux- High trip POWER OPERATION may versus 72 setpoints :::: 1% for each 1% proceed for up to a total of 7 2 hours).

F0(Z) exceeds limit. hours; subsequent POWER AND OPERATION may proceed A.3 Reduce Overpower .L'l.T trip provided the Overpower .L'l.T Trip setpoints :::: 1% for each 1% Setpoints have been reduced at F0(Z) exceeds limit. least 1% for each 1% F0(Z)

AND exceeds the limit. The Overpower A.4 Perform SR 3.2.1.1 and .L'l.T Trip Setpoint reduction shall be SR 3.2.1.2. performed with the reactor in at least HOT STAND BY.

Page 1 0

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-0 1 NUREG-1431 TS 3.2.1A Salem TS 3/4.2.2 Result Action b. Identify and correct the cause of the out of limit condition prior to increasing THERMAL POWER above the reduced limit required by a. above; THERMAL POWER may then be increased provided F0(Z) is demonstrated through a core power distribution measurement to be within its limit.

SR 3.2.1.1 Verify measured Fxy shall be evaluated to determine Proposed values of F0(Z) are within if F0(Z) is within its limit; SRs change will limits, specified in the COLR. contain the details on how to maintain determine with some parameters equivalency.

3.2.1.2 Verify Fcxv < F Lxv. contained in the COLR.

The com parison demonstrates that revising Salem SR 4.2.2.2.f is acceptable and that the LCO will continue to be met. The proposed change conti nues to comply with 1 0 CFR 50. 36.

Table 2 above was based on the TS wording from Unit 1 . The TS wording for Unit 2 is similar to Unit 1 and comparison resu lts for Unit 2 would be identical to those above in Table 2.

5.0 REGULATORY ANALYSIS

5.1 No Significant Hazards Consideration In accordance with 1 0 CFR 50. 90, PSEG Nuclear LLC (PSEG) hereby requests an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-70 and 75 for Salem N uclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2.

This license amendment request proposes changes to the following three Surveillance Requirements (SR) associated with Power Distribution Lim its Technical Specification (TS) 3/4.2. 1 , "Axial Flux Difference (AFD)" and TS 3/4.2.2, "Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor-F0(Z)":

1. SR 4. 2 . 1 .3

2. S R 4.2 . 1 . 4

3. SR 4.2.2.2.f The proposed SR changes eliminate or relocate information that is considered to be (i) an inaccuracy or (ii) an unnecessary level of detail. The proposed changes are consistent, as applicable, with Section 36 of Part 50 of Title 1 0 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( 1 0 CFR 50.36) and NUREG- 1 43 1 , "Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, Revision

4. 0."

PSEG has evaluated whether or not a significant hazards consideration is involved with the proposed amendment(s) by focusing on the three standards set forth in 1 0 CFR 50.92, "Issuance of amendment," as discussed below:

Page 1 1

L R- N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01

1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The change to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.2 . 1 . 3 will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The change to SR 4.2. 1 . 3 aligns the Technical Specifications (TS) with the current TS Bases and is consistent with NUREG-1 43 1 ; there is no change to how target flux difference is measured. Since the change does not im pact any conditions that would initiate an accident, the probability or consequences of previously analyzed events is not increased . Therefore, there is no im pact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated .

The change to SR 4.2. 1 .4 and TS Bases by utilizing the predicted Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at end of cycle life i n determining the target AFD via interpolation will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR.

The change to SR 4.2. 1 .4 aligns the TS with the Salem UFSAR design basis as described in Section 4. 3.2.2.6, which specifies use of cycle specific target values, and is consistent with NUREG-1 431 . Since the change does not im pact any conditions that would initiate an accident, the probability or consequences of previously analyzed events is not increased. Therefore, there is no i m pact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated .

The relocation of the SR 4.2.2. 2.f axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases has no impact to the accidents analyzed in the Salem UFSAR and is not an accident initiator. The relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases is consistent with NUREG- 1 43 1 . Since the change does not i mpact any cond itions that would initiate an accident, the probability or consequences of previously analyzed events is not increased. Therefore, there is no im pact to the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

The change to SR 4.2. 1 .3 will not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR. The change to SR 4. 2. 1 . 3 aligns the TS with the current TS Bases and is consistent with NUREG- 1 43 1 ; there is no change to how target flux difference is measured. Since the change does not im pact any conditions that would initiate an accident, there is no possibi lity of a new or d ifferent kind of accident resulting from the change. Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or d ifferent kind of accident from those previously evaluated .

The change to SR 4.2. 1 .4 and TS Bases by utilizing the predicted Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at end of cycle l ife in determining the target AFD via interpolation will not result in any design or reg u latory l i mit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR.

The change to SR 4.2. 1 .4 a l igns the TS with the Salem UFSAR design basis as described in Section 4.3.2 .2.6, which specifies use of cycle specific target values, and is consistent with NUREG-1 431. Since the change does not impact any conditions that would initiate an accident, Page 1 2

LR-N1 4-007 4 LAR S1 4-01 there is no possibility of a new or different kind of accident resulting from the change.

Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or d ifferent kind of accident from those previously evaluated.

The relocation of the SR 4.2.2.2.f axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases has no impact to the accidents analyzed in the Salem UFSAR and is not an accident initiator. The relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases is consistent with NUREG- 1 43 1 . Since the change does not i mpact any conditions that would initiate an accident, there is no possibility of a new or d ifferent kind of accident resulting from the change. Therefore, there is no possibility of a new or d ifferent kind of accident from those previously evaluated.

3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

The change to SR 4.2. 1 .3 wil l not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented in the UFSAR. The change to SR 4.2. 1 .3 aligns the TS with the current TS Bases and is consistent with NUREG-1 431 ; there is no change to how target flux d ifference is measured. Therefore, there is no red uction in margin of safety.

The change to SR 4.2. 1 . 4 and TS Bases by utilizing the predicted Axial Flux Difference (AFD) at end of cycle life in determ ining the target AFD via interpolation wil l not result in any design or regulatory limit being exceeded with respect to the safety analyses documented i n the UFSAR.

The change to SR 4.2 . 1 .4 aligns the TS with the Salem UFSAR design basis as described in Section 4.3.2.2.6, which specifies use of cycle specific target values, and is consistent with NUREG-1 431 . Therefore, there is no reduction in margin of safety.

The relocation of the SR 4.2.2.2.f axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases has no impact to the accidents analyzed in the Salem UFSAR and is not an accident initiator. The relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases is consistent with N UREG- 1 431 . In accordance with NRC approved methodologies (TS 6.9 . 1 .9), reload specific safety evaluations are performed to ensure that the lim its of safety analyses are met (i . e . , margin of safety). Therefore, the relocation of the axial exclusion zones to the TS Bases does not impact margin of safety.

Based upon the above, PSEG N uclear concludes that the proposed amendment presents no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 1 0 CFR 50.92 (c), and, accordi ngly, a finding of "no significant hazards consideration" is justified .

5.2 Applicable Regulatory Requ i rements and Criteria 10 CFR 50.36 Technical Specifications 1 0 CFR 50. 36, "Technical Specifications" identifies the requirements for the Technical Specification categories for operating power plants: (1 ) Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings, (2) Limiting conditions for operation, (3) Surveillance requirements, (4) Design features, (5) Administrative controls, (6) Decommissioning and (7)

Initial notification, and (8) Written Reports. For Surveillance requirements 1 0 CFR 50. 36 states:

"Surveillance requirements are requirements relating to test, calibration, or inspection to assure Page 1 3

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01 that the necessary quality of systems and components is maintained, that facility operation will be within safety limits, and that the limiting conditions for operation will be met."

10 CFR 50 Appendix A General Design Criteria (GDC)

Salem Generating Station was designed using the Atomic I ndustrial Forum (AI F) general design criteria as published in a letter to the Atomic Energy Com mission (AEC) from E. A. Wiggin, Atomic Industrial Forum, dated October 2, 1 967. In add ition to the AIF General Design Criteria, the Salem Generating Station (SGS) was designed to comply with Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G's) understanding of the intent of the AEC's proposed General Design Criteria, as published for comment by the AEC in July, 1 967. A com parison of the Salem plant design with 1 OCFR50, Appendix A, (General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants dated July 7, 1 97 1 )

was performed and documented i n Salem U FSAR Section 3 . 1 .3. Salem U FSAR Section 3. 1 .3 states, "The Salem Plant design conforms with the intent of "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," (1 0 CFR 50, Appendix A) dated July 7, 1 971 . . . ".

The proposed changes to the target Axial Flux Difference Surveillance Requirements and relocation of Fxy peaking factor axial exclusion zones to Technical Specification Bases do not alter confo rmance with either the 1 0 CFR 50, Appendix A general design criteria or the AIF general design criteria as listed in the Salem U FSAR Section 3 . 1 .2.

I n conclusion, based on the considerations d iscussed above, (1 ) there is a reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the p roposed m anner, (2) such activities wil l be conducted in com pliance with the NRC's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

A review h as determ ined that the proposed amendment wou ld change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility com ponent located within the restricted area, as defined in 1 0 CFR 20, or would change an inspection or surveillance requirement. However, the proposed amendment does not involve (i) a significant hazards consideration , (ii) a significant change in the types or significant i ncrease in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, or (iii) a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion set forth in 1 0 CFR 5 1 .22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 1 0 CFR 51 .22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the proposed amendment.

Page 1 4

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01

7.0 REFERENCES

1 . Salem Techn ical Specifications.

2 . Salem Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (U FSAR).

3. Salem Core Operating Limits Report (COLR).

4. TSTF-24-A, Rev. 1 , Technical Specification Task Force Improved Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler.

5 . Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, N UREG- 1 431 Vol 1 Specifications, Rev. 2.

6. Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, N U REG-1 43 1 Vol 1 Specifications, Rev. 2.2.

7. Standard Techn ical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, NU REG- 1 431 Volume 1 Specifications, Revision 4.0.

8. Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants, N UREG-1 431 Volume 2 Bases, Revision 4.0.

Page 1 5

LR- N 1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-0 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PAGES WITH PROPOSED CHANGES The following Techn ical Specifications for Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-70 are affected by this change request:

Technical Specification SR 4.2. 1 .3 3/4 2-3 SR 4.2. 1 .4 3/4 2-3 SR 4.2 . 2.2.f 3/4 2-7 The fol lowing Technical Specifications for Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-75 are affected by this change request:

Technical Specification SR 4.2. 1 .3 3/4 2-3 SR 4.2. 1 . 4 3/4 2-3 SR 4.2.2.2 .f 3/4 2-7

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 POWER D ISTRI BUTION L I M ITS S U RVE I L LANCE REQU I REMENTS (Continued) 4.2. 1 .3 The target flux difference of each OPERABLE excore channel shall be determined by measure ment in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

4.2. 1 .4 The target flux difference shall be u pdated in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program by either determining the target flux difference pursuant to 4.2.1.3 above or by linear interpolation between the most recently measured value and 0 percent at the end of the cycle life. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

SALEM - UN IT 1 3/4 2-3 Amendment No.

LRN1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01 POWER DISTRI BUTION L I M ITS S U RVEI LLANCE REQ U I RE M E NTS (Continued)

d. Remeasuring Fxy according to the following schedule:

1. When Fxyc is greater than the FxtTP limit for the appropriate measured core plane but less than the Fx/ relationshi p , additional core power d istribution measurements shall be taken and Fxyc com pared to FxtTP and Fx/:

a) E ither within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after exceeding by 20% of RATED THERMAL POWER or greater, the THERMAL POWER at which

• Fxyc was last determined, or b) I n accordance with the Survei llance Frequency Control Program, whichever occurs first.

2. When the Fxyc is less than or equal to the FxtTP limit for the appropriate measured core plane, additional core power distribution measurements shall be taken and Fxyc com pared to FxtTP and FxyL in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program .

e. The Fxy limit for Rated Thermal Power (Fxy RTP) shall be provided for all core planes containing bank "D" control rods and all unrodded core planes in the COLR per specification 6. 9 . 1 .9.

f. The Fxy limits of e, above, are not applicable in the follmving to the excluded core plane regions as measured in percent of core height from the bottom of the fuel.;..

1. Lmver core region from 0 to 15% inclusive.

2. Upper core region from 85 to 100% inclusive.

3. Grid plane regions at 17.8 '* 2%, 32.1 '* 2%, 46.4 '* 2%, 60.6 '* 2%,

and 74. 9 '* 2% inclusive.

4. Core plane regions within '* 2% of core height('* 2.88 inches) about the bani< demand position of the bani "0" control rods.

g. Evaluating the effects of Fx on F0(Z) to determ ine if F0(Z) is within its limit

(

whenever Fxyc exceeds Fxy .

SALEM - UN IT 1 3/4 2-7 Amendment No. 2-99

L R-N 14-0074 LAR S14-01 POWER DISTRI BUTION L I M ITS SURVEI LLANCE REQU I RE MENTS (Continued) 4.2.1.3 The target flux difference of each OPERABLE excore channel shall be determined by measurement i n accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

4.2.1.4 The target flux d ifference shall be u pdated in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program by either determining the target flux difference pursuant to 4. 2.1.3 above or by linear interpolation behveen the most recently measured value and 0% at the end of the cycle life. The provisions of Specification 4.0.4 are not applicable.

SALEM - UNIT 2 3/4 2-3 Amendment No.

LR- N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 POWER DISTRI BUTION L I M ITS SURVE I LLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continued)

2. When the Fxyc i s less than or equal to the FxyRTP l imit for the appropriate measured core plane, additional core power d istribution measurements shall be taken and Fxyc compared to FxyRTP and Fx/ in accordance with the Surveillance Frequency Control Program.

e. The Fxy limit for Rated Thermal Power (FxyRTP) shall be provided for all core planes containing bank "D" control rods and all unrodded core planes in the COLR per specification 6. 9 . 1 .9.

f. The Fxy limits of e., above, are not applicable in the following to the excluded core plane regions as measured in percent of core height from the bottom of the fuel.;..

1. Lov.'er core region from 0% to 15%, inclusive.

2. Upper core region from 85% to 100%, inclusive.

3. Grid plane regions at 17.8% + 2%, 32.1% + 2%, 46.4% + 2%,

60.6% + 2% and 74.9% + 2%, inclusive.

4. Core plane regions vvithin + 2% of core height(+ 2. 88 inches) about the bani< demand position of the bani< "D" control rods.

g. Evaluating the effects of Fx on F0(Z) to determine if F0(Z) is within its limit whenever Fxyc exceeds Fxy .

4.2.2. 3 When F0(Z) is measured pursuant to specification 4. 1 0. 2. 2 , an overall measured F0(Z) shall be obtained from a core power distribution measurement and increased by the applicable manufacturing and measurement uncertainties as specified in the COLR.

SALEM - UNIT 2 3/4 2-7 Amendment No.

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-0 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION BASES PAGES WITH PROPOSED CHANGES

{Information Only)

The following Technical Specifications Bases for Renewed Facil ity Operating License DPR-70 are affected by this change request:

Technical Specification Bases B 3/4.2 . 1 B 3/4 2-2 B 3/4.2.2 and 3/4.2.3 B 3/4 2-5 The following Technical Specifications Bases for Renewed Facility Operating License DPR-75 are affected by this change request:

Technical Specification Bases B 3/4.2. 1 B 3/4 2-2 B 3/4. 2.2 and 3/4. 2 . 3 B 3/4 2-5

LR-N 1 4-007 4 LAR S1 4-01 POWER D ISTRI BUTION L I M ITS BASES Although it is i ntended that the plant will be operated with the AXIAL FLUX D I FFERENCE within the target band in the COLR per Specification 3.2 . 1 about the target flux d ifference, during rapid plant THERMAL POWER red uctions, control rod motion will cause the AFD to deviate outside of the target band at reduced THERMAL POWER levels. This deviation will not affect the xenon red istribution sufficiently to change the envelope of peaking factors which may be reached on a subsequent return to RATED THERMAL POWER (with the AFD withi n the target band) provided the time duration of the deviation is limited. Accord ingly, a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> penalty deviation limit cum ulative during the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is provided for operation outside of the target band but within the limits specified in the COLR while at THERMAL POWER levels between 50% and 90% of RATED THERMAL POWER. For THERMAL POWER levels between 1 5% and 50% of rated THERMAL POWER, deviations of the AFD outside of the target band are less sign ificant. The penalty of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> actual time reflects this reduced significance.

Provisions for monitoring the AFD are derived from the plant nuclear instrumentation system through the AFD Mon itor Alarm. A control room recorder continuously displays the auctioneered high flux difference and the target band limits as a function of power level. An alarm is received any time the auctioneered h igh flux d ifference exceeds the target band limits.

Ti me outside the target band is graphical ly presented on the strip chart.

Measu rement of the target flux difference is accomplished by measuring the power distribution when the core is at equilibri u m xenon conditions, preferably at high power levels with the control ban ks nearly withd rawn . This measurement provides the equilibrium xenon axial power distribution from which the target val ue can be determined. The target flux difference varies slowly with core burnup.

Alternatively, linear interpolation between the most recent measurement of the target flux differences and a predicted end of cycle value provides a reasonable update because the AFD changes d ue to burn up tend toward 0% AFD. When the predicted end of cycle AFD from the cycle nuclear design is different from 0%, it (the prediction) may be a better value for the interpolation.

Figure B 3/4 2-1 shows a typical monthly target band.

SALE M - U N IT 1 B 3/4 2-2 Amend ment No.

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01 POWER DISTRI BUTION LIM ITS BASES

a. abnormal perturbations in the radial power shape, such as from rod m isalignment, N

effect F L'>H more directly Fa,

b. although rod movement has a direct influence upon limiting F0 to within its limit, N

such control is not readily avai lable to lim it F 6H, and

c. errors in prediction for control power shape detected during startup physics tests can be compensated for in Fa by restricting axial flux d istributions. This N

compensation for F L'>H is less readily available.

N The appropriate measurement uncertainty for F L'>H obtained using PDMS is determined using the measurement uncertainty methodology contained in WCAP 1 2472-P-A. The cycle and plant specific uncertainty information needed to support the PDMS calculation is contained in the COLR. The PDMS will automatically calculate and apply the correct measurement N

uncertainty to the measured F L'>H*

The rad ial peaking factor Fxy( z) is measured periodically to provide assurance that the hot channel factor, F0(z), remains within its lim it. The Fxy limit for Rated Thermal Power ( F RTPxy ),

as provided in the COLR per specification 6 . 9 . 1 .9, was determined from expected power control maneuvers over the full range of burn up conditions in the core.

The core plane regions applicable to an Fxy evaluation exclude the followi ng, measured in percent of core height (from the bottom of the fuel):

a. Lower core region, from 0% to 1 5% incl usive,

b. Upper core region, from 85% to 1 00% inclusive,

c. Grid plane regions at 1 7.8% + 2%, 32. 1 % + 2%, 46 .4% + 2%, 60.6% + 2%, and 74.9% +

2%,inclusive, and

d. Core plane regions withi n + 2% of core height (+2.88 inches) about the bank demand position of the bank "D" control rods.

3/4. 2.4 QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO The q uadrant power tilt ratio l i m it assures that the rad ial power d istribution satisfies the design values used in the power capability analysis. Rad ial power distribution measurements are made during startup testing and periodically during power operation.

The limit of 1 . 02 at which corrective action is req u ired provides DNB and li near heat generation rate protection with x-y plane power tilts. A limiting tilt of 1 .025 can be tolerated before the margin for uncertainty in F0 is depleted. The limit of 1 .02 was selected to provide an allowance for the uncertainty associated with the indicated power tilt.

The two hour time allowance for operation with a tilt condition greater than 1 . 02 but less than 1 . 09 is provided to allow identification and correction of a dropped or misaligned rod . I n the event such action does not correct the tilt, the m argin for uncertainty on F0 is reinstated by reducing the power by 3 percent from RATED THERMAL POWER for each percent of tilt in excess of 1 .0.

SALEM - U N IT 1 Amendment No.

LR-N 1 4-0074 LAR S 1 4-01 POWER DISTRI BUTION L I M ITS BASES Although it is intended that the plant wil l be operated with the AXIAL FLUX D I FFERENCE within the target band in the COLR per Specification 3.2 . 1 about the target flux d ifference, during rapid plant THERMAL POWER reductions, control rod motion will cause the AFD to d eviate outside of the target band at red uced TH ERMAL POWER levels. This deviation will not affect the xenon red istribution sufficiently to change the envelope of peaking factors wh ich may be reached on a subsequent return to RATED THERMAL POWER (with the AFD within the target band) provided the time duration of the deviation is limited. Accordingly, a 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> penalty deviation limit cum ulative d uring the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> is provided for operation outside of the target band but within the limits specified in the COLR while at THERMAL POWER levels between 50% and 90% of RATED TH E RMAL POWER. For THERMAL POWER levels between 1 5% and 50% of rated TH ERMAL POWER, deviations of the AFD outside of the target band are less significant. The penalty of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> actual time reflects this reduced significance.

Provisions for monitoring the AFD are derived from the plant nuclear instrumentation system through the AFD Monitor Alarm . A control room recorder continuously d isplays the auctioneered high flux difference and the target band l i mits as a function of power level. An alarm is received any time the auctioneered high flux d ifference exceeds the target band limits.

Time outside the target band is graphically presented on the strip chart.

Measurement of the target fl ux difference is accomplished by measuring the power d istribution when the core is at equilibrium xenon conditions, preferably at high power levels with the control banks nearly withd rawn. This m easurement provides the equilibrium xenon axial power d istribution from which the target value can be determ ined. The target flux d ifference varies slowly with core burnup.

Alternatively, linear i nterpolation between the most recent measurement of the target flux differences and a predicted end of cycle value provides a reasonable update because the AFD changes due to burnup tend toward 0% AFD. When the predicted end of cycle AFD from the cycle nuclear design is d ifferent from 0%, it (the prediction) m ay be a better value for the interpolation.

Fig u re B 3/4 2-1 shows a typical monthly target band.

SALEM - U N IT 2 B 3/4 2-2 Amendment No. 4-9-7

LR-N1 4-0074 LAR S1 4-01 POWER D ISTRI BUTION L I M ITS BASES 3/4.2.2 and 3/4.2.3 H EAT FLUX AND NUCLEAR ENTHALPY HOT CHANNEL AND RADIAL PEAKING FACTORS - Fa(Z) AND F H (Continued)

a. abnormal perturbations in the radial power shape, such as from rod misalignment, effect F H more directly than Fa.

b. although rod movement has a direct influence upon limiting F a to within its limit, such control is not read ily available to l im it F H, and

c. errors i n pred iction for control power shape detected d uring startu p physics test can be compensated for in Fa by restricting axial flux d istributions. This compensation for F H is less rapidly available.

The appropriate measurement uncertainty for F N1:1H obtained using PDMS is determined using the measurement uncertainty methodology contained in WCAP 1 2472-P-A. The cycle and plant specific uncertainty info rmation needed to support the PDMS calculation is contained in the COLR. The PDMS will automatically calculate and apply the correct measurement uncertainty to the measured F NL:IH*

The rad ial peaking factor Fxy(Z) is measured periodically to provide assurance that the hot channel factor Fa(Z), remains within its limit. The Fxy lim it for RATED TH ERMAL POWER F RTPxy , as provided in COLR per specification 6.9. 1 .9, was determined from expected power control maneuvers over the full range of burn up conditions in the core.

The core plane regions applicable to an Fxy evaluation exclude the following, measured in percent of core height (from the bottom of the fuel):

a. Lower core region, from 0% to 1 5% inclusive,

b. Upper core region, from 85% to 1 00% inclusive,

c. G rid plane regions at 1 7.8% + 2%. 32. 1 % + 2%, 46.4% +/- 2%, 60.6% +/- 2%, and 74.9% +

2%,inclusive, and

d. Core plane regions within + 2% of core height (+ 2.88 inches) about the bank demand position of the bank "D" control rods .

3/4.2. 4 Q UADRANT POWER T ILT RATIO The q uadrant power tilt ratio limit assures that the rad ial power distribution satisfies the design values used i n the power capability analysis. Rad ial power d istribution measurements are made du ring startup testing and periodically during power operation.

SALE M - U N IT 2 B 3/4 2-5 Amendment No.