ML18051A925
| ML18051A925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 06/11/1984 |
| From: | Rosalyn Jones Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18051A924 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8406130131 | |
| Download: ML18051A925 (5) | |
Text
UNITED STATES A
N LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOP' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REVISED LOCA ANALYSIS FOR THE PALISADES.PLANT
. 1.0 Introduction ln Reference l, the iicensee stated that as a result of additiona1 steam generator tube piugging during the current outage, the number of steam Qenerator tubes plugged would exceed the number assumed in the plant LOCA analysis. Thus, as required by the safety evaluation ia support of
.Amendment 31 to the Palisades Operating License, revised LOCA analysis would be submitted for staff review and approval* prior* f9 resumption of operatiOi.
The revised LOCA analysis, documented in Reference-2, increases the number :gf plugged steam generator tubes from the current license base of 4175 tubes to 5000 tubes.
The revised analysis was submitted by the licensee via Reference 3.
Our
.evaluation of the analysis follows.
It should *be noted that within Reference 2, analyses are presented which*
evaiuate the effect of increased core inlet temperature and increased pressurizer pres~ure. 1hese anaiyses are not the subject of this SER as changes in inlet temperature and pressurizer pressure are not being implemented at the Palisades Plant.
2.. 0 Evaluation In Reference 2, the licensee provided a revised LOCA analysis for the limiting case break 2ssuming 5000 total plugged steam generator tubes.
The b~eak analyzed was a double-ended guillotine break in the pump discharge piping with a discharo!_£~efficient of 0.6.
Previous large 8406130131 840611 PDR ADOCK 05000255 P
.PDR
break spectrum analyses,.orted in.Reference 4, have.lntified this i
ca~e as yielding the highest peak cladding temperature (PCT).
Th~ analysis was performed using the ENC WREN-II PWR Evalu~tibn. Model (References 5, 6, and 7). *This model w2s approved by the staff, in References 8 and-9, as meeting the requirements of Appendix K to 10 CFR
- 50.
The analyses were perfonned for the ENC reload batch E fuel design with c.n c.ssumed axial power shape. peaked at 0.6 of core height.
A linear
_lieat-:qeneratio~~ rate (L~GR) of 15.28 kw/ft _was used.
The LHGR corresponqs to a total peaking of 2.76 with a radicl peaking of 1.45 and a local..
.bundle peaking of 1.224.
~~
These values are consist=nt with those used in __
pr-evious LOCA analyses, (Reference 10)_.
~-=--
Using the 5000 plugged steam generator tubes, a PCT of 2106cf was calc.ulated for.the limiting break.
This PCT is only 25°f higher than that obtained in the previous analysis (Reference 10) using ~175 plugged tubes.
local oxidat~on was calculated to be less than 17~ and whole-core metal-water reaction was less than l~. Thus, the analysis demonstrates that the Palisades Pla~t, with up to 5000 plugged tubes: satisfies the require~e~ts of 10 CFR 50.46.
During our review, we noted that the cladding swelling and.rupture models of NUREG-0630 are not a part of the ENC WREM-11 PWR Evaluation Model.
However, analyses submitted by the licensee in reference 12
- ~hbws that the ENC WREH-11 model predicts conservative peak cladding
temperatures for the ~iscdes Plant relative to the.alues obtained
- using the NUREG~0630 model.~. The staff approved these analyses ih Reference 13.
Thus, we find that ~he ENC.WREM-I~ model is wh?lly in compliance with Appendix K for the Palisades Plant.
The current core configuration for Palisades consists of ENC reload batches H, I, and J.
These batches are all of the same rod design.
However, the batch E fuel, which w2s used for this analysis~* is of a slightly different design.
Analyses in References conditions, show PCTs cf 2081°F and 205i°F for the 10 and lJ;, at BOL
( J...
bc:tch E ~,fid batch H/I/J design, respectively. Thus, use of the batch E fuel desi.gn ;tor this analysis is conservative.
3.0.Conclusion Based upon the forego'ing, we conclude that the Palisades Plant, with up to 5000 to.ta1 steam generator tubes plugged,1s in compliance with 10 CFR 50.46. Therefore, the requirement, in the safety evaluation in support of Amendment 31 of the Palisades Operating License, to resubmit the LOCA analysis for NRC approval has been satisfied.
W~{le we have concluded that the LOCA analysis is acceptable, we note that the 1 i censee has provided *no i nforrnati on on the impact of increased tube plugging on other postulated plant transients and accidents.
Ihe l i cen.see shou.l d evaluate the. imoact of.increased tube plugging on other postulated plant transients and accidents prior to plant operat~on-with more than 4175 plugged tubes.
Ref er.ence s
. l.
Letter, B. D. Johnston.tCPCo)" to D. k. _Crutchfield (!~RC). ".Palisades*
Plant - Withdrawal of.March 16, 1984 Technic~1 ~pecificetion*
Change 1 11 April 12, 1984
- 2.
11 Analysis of Axial Power Distribution Limits for the Palisades Nuclear _Reactor at 2530 MITT:
Sensitivity Studies, 11 XN-NF-78-16, Supplement l, Exxon Nuclear Company, April 1984
- 3.
Letter, B. b. Johnson (CPCo) to D. M. Crutchfield (NRC),
11 Palisades Plant - Resubmittal of LDCA Analysis for the Palisades Plant, 11 April 27, 1984
- 4.
11 LOCA Analysis for Palisades at 2530 M~n using the ENC WRH'1-1I P\\iJR ECCS Evaluation Model 1
11 XN-NF-77-24, Exxon Nuclear Compc.ny, July 1977
- 5.
11 Exxon Nucle~r Company WREM-Based Gene~ic PWR ECCS Evaiuation Model, XN-75~41, Exxon Nuclear C6mpany:
- a.
Volume I, July 1975
- b.
Volume II' August 1975
- c.
Volume I 11, Revision 2" August 1975--=:-
- d.
Supplement l, August 1975
- e.
Supplement 2 ' August 1975
- f.
Supplement 3' August 1975
- g.
Su pp 1 ement 4, Au oust 1975
- h.
Supplement 5, Revision l ' October 1975
.. i.
Supplement 6 I October 1975
- j.
Supplement 7 I November 1975.
-~
- *"ti.
11 Exxon Nuclear Company \\./REM-Based Generic P'WR ECCS Evaluation Model Update Ef~C h'REM-I 1, *Xt~-i6-27, Exxon Nuclear Company~
- a.
July 1976
- b.
Supplement l, Septe~ber 1976
- c.
Supplement 2, November 1976.
- 7.
1'Revised Nucleate Boiling* Lockout for ENC WREM-Based ECCS Evaluation
- Models, 11 XN-76-44, Exxon Nuclear Company, September 1976.
- 8.
Letter, G. Lear (lrnC) to \\i.1. Nechedor.i (Exxon), ~*1arch 9, i977
- 9.
Letter, G. Lear (NRC) to\\.!. Nechedor.i (Exxon)~ January i8, 1977
- 10.
Analysis of Axial Power Distribution Limits for the Palisades Nuclear Rec:ctor at 2530 M'rlT,"
/J~-78-15, Exxon Nuclear Company, June 1978
- 11.
D. A. Power and R. 0. Meyer, "Cladding Sio.*eliing end Rupture Models for LDC.A. Ana I ys is, l\\URE G-0630, fl.pr ii l 980
- ~--
- ~ 12.
Letter, D. P. Hof. (CPCo) to D. Ziemann (NRC).uel Clc-d-Swe11ing.
end Rupture During LOC.A:.,
11 January 16, 1980
- 13.
Letter, D. M*. Crutcn_field (NRC) to D. P. Hoffman (CPCo),
11 ECCS Clad S1-.*ellin9 and Rupture*(Ta?k No. B-47*)
~ Pclisa*d~s.. Plant and Big Rock
- Point, 11 September 11, 1980
- 14.
"Palisades Cycle 5 Reload Fuel Safety Analysis Re-por.t., 11 XN-NF-8l-34(P)~ Exxon Nuclear Company, May 1981 4.0 Acknowledqement Jhis safety evaluation was prepared by R. Jones.
Dated:
June ll, 1984
~:.--
...