ML17156B019
| ML17156B019 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1989 |
| From: | Keiser H PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17156B020 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8902100095 | |
| Download: ML17156B019 (9) | |
Text
~
\\
I t
I BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of PENNSYLVANIA POWER LIGHT COMPANY Docket No. 50-387 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO.
119 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-14 SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNIT NO.
1
- Licensee, Pennsylvania Power
& Light Company, hereby files proposed Amendment No.
119 to its Facility Operating License No. NPF-14 dated July 17, 1982.
This amendment contains a revision to the Susquehanna SES Unit 1 Technical Specifications.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER
& LIGHT COMPANY BY:
H.
W. Keiser Senior Vice President Nuclear Sworn t pand this 'f b cribed before me 1989.
k Notary Public hOTAR!l4.SEPL MARTHAC.SFDORA, NOTARYPUBUC ALLNTCV/N,LPHtGH COUNTY MYCOAMISSKNUpiRES <<Vv I. 15, 1890 hteabor, P~a6b Anat'cn 0! Nahries 02 8902<
)OCK 050
@DC 00>> e~ - 003:"7 pop QQ P
0
, V
NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS The following three questions are addressed for each of the proposed Technical Specification changes:
Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
o Specification 2.2.1, Reactor Protection System Instrumentation Setpoints The change to this specification is a correction of a typographical error on Table 2.2.1-1, Functional Unit 2.b., where footnote "//" has been added onto the allowable value.
I.
No.
The change is editorial in nature; the footnote is currently applicable to the trip setpoint, and should also be applicable to the allowable value.
Correct single loop operation limits are provided in Specification 3.4.1.1.2.
This change corrects a typographical error in the issuance of Amendment 56 to License No. NPF-14.
This correction has no impact on any safety analysis.
II.
No.
See I above.
III.
No.
See I above.
Specification 3/4.2.1, Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate The changes to this specification are editorial in nature in that they reflect the removal of the remaining General Electric fuel from the SSES Unit 1 core.
No.
The changes to this specification and its associated figures are solely due to the fact that no GE fuel will reside in the Unit 1 Cycle 5 core.
All references to the GE fuel and its limits are therefore deleted.
The ANF fuel limits remain the same.
These editorial changes have no impact on any safety analysis.
II.
No.
See I above.
III.
No.
See I above.
I T'
C
o Specification 3/4.2.2, APRH Setpoints The changes to this Specification are editorial in nature in that they reflect the removal of the remaining GE fuel from the SSES Unit 1 core.
I.
No.
The changes to this specification are solely due to the fact that no GE fuel will reside in the Unit 1 Cycle 5 core.
The definition of "T" for GE fuel is therefore deleted.
This editorial change has no impact on any safety analysis.
II.
No.
See I above.
III.
No.
See I above.
o Specification 3/4.2.3, Minimum Critical Power Ratio The changes to this specification correct an administrative error in the issuance of Amendment 72 to License No. NPF-14, and provide new operating limit MCPR curves based on cycle-specific transient analyses.
I.
No.
The administrative change corrects two pages that were inadvertently reversed in the issuance of Amendment 72; this has no impact on any safety analysis.
Limiting core-wide transients were evaluated with ANF's COTRANSA code (see Summary Report Reference
- 18) and this output was utilized by the XCOBRA-T methodology (see Summary Report Reference
- 19) to determine delta CPRs.
Both COTRANSA and XCOBRA-T have been approved by the NRC in previous license amendments.
A modified void history correlation was used in the neutronics calculations which ultimately affect the delta CPRs, but this change was needed to achieve the same degree of accuracy for higher fuel exposures as was previously provided for lower fuel exposures (see ANF letter RAC:058:88, sent under separate cover).
All core-wide transients were analyzed deterministically (i.e., using bounding values as input parameters).
Two local events, Rod Withdrawal Error and Fuel Loading Error, were analyzed in accordance with the methods described in XN-NF-80-19 (A)
Vol.
1 (see Summary Report Reference 15).
This methodology has been approved by the NRC.
Based on the above, the methodology used to develop the new operating limit MCPRs for the Technical Specifications does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
K I
~
i N
e 4
II.
No.
The methodology described can only be evaluated for its affect on the consequences of analyzed events; it cannot create new ones.
The consequences of analyzed events were evaluated in I above.
Regarding the administrative correction, see I above.
III.
No.
As stated in I above, and in greater detail in the attached Reload Summary Report, the methodology used to evaluate core-wide and local transients is consistent with previously approved methods and meets all pertinent regulatory criteria for use in this application.
The new void history correlation could be considered an exception since it has not been previously utilized in reload submittals for SSES, but its use ensures a more accurate result for the higher burnups which will be occurring in Cycle 5.
Based on the above, the use of the methodology used to produce the Unit 1 Cycle 5 MCPR operating limits will not result in a significant decrease in any margin of safety.
Regarding the administrative correction, see I above.
Specification 3/4.2.4, Linear Heat Generation Rate All proposed changes to this specification are editorial.
No.
The proposed changes, simply remove all-references to GE fuel.
This has no impact on safety since it.is entirely administrative in nature.
II.
No.
See I above.
III.
No.
See I above.
o Specification 3/4.3.6, Control Rod Block Instrumentation The changes to this specification correct an administrative error in the issuance of Amendment No.
64 to License No. NPF-14 by applying footnote "W" appropriately in trip functions la and 2a in Table 3.3.6-2.
I.
No.
Footnote "f30" was inadvertently left off of the two trip functions for which revised limits are required for single loop operation.
Placing the footnotes in their appropriate locations ensures a proper cross reference between specifications 3/4.3.6 and 3/4.4.1.
This change is editorial in nature and has no impact on any safety analyses.
II.
No.
See I above.
III.
No.
See I above.
Specification 3/4.4.1, Recirculation System All changes to this specification support single loop operation (SLO).
No.
The original GE SLO analysis required the adjustment of APRM scram, APRM Rod Block, and Rod Block Monitor setpoints in SLO to bound changes in the assumed drive flow to core flow relationship between two loop and single loop operation.
The GE analysis indicated that the two loop to single loop change is typically less than 7X drive flow for a given core flow.
SSES-specific data taken by PP&L indicates that an 8.5X drive flow change would bound differences between two loop and single loop operation.
Therefore, specifications 3.4.1.1.2a.2, 4,
and 6 incorporate setpoint adjustments to account for this 8.5X change.
Specification a.3 is revised to remove the GE fuel reference (an administrative change),
and to provide the proper MAPLHGR limit for ANF fuel.
LOCA analyses performed by ANF (see Summary Report ref. 31) indicate that the two loop MAPLHGR limits are applicable to SLO for ANF fuel.
New specification a.5 proposes new MCPR limits for SLO based on transient analyses performed by ANF for events initiated from SLO conditions (See Summary Report Ref. 5).
These analyses show that the operating limit MCPR must be increased to a minimum of 1.42 for SLO.
A 0.01 constant is added to the two loop operating limit MCPR for low power and low core flow conditions for SLO operating limit MCPR values greater than 1.42.
i Based on the"above analyses of the non-editorial changes to this specification, appropriate limits have been proposed to assure that SLO will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The editorial change
. has-no impact on previous analyses.
No.
The revised setpoints are based on actual data which makes them more restrictive; the revised limits for MCPR and MAPLHGR are based on approved LOCA and transient analysis methods.
Neither of these, nor the editorial change, can create the potential for new events.
No.
As stated in II. above, the revised setpoints are more restrictive and more accurate, and therefore cannot result in a significant reduction in any safety margin.
The revised MCPR and MAPLHGR limits are based on analyses which ensure that no significant reduction in safety margin has occurred based on their inputs, applied conservatisms, and calculational methodologies as documented in this proposal.
The editorial change has no safety impact.
rrsmea158a:14
~l ~
II n
C N
- JP o
's ~
II