ML18079A797
| ML18079A797 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1979 |
| From: | Schneider F Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18079A796 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908140738 | |
| Download: ML18079A797 (11) | |
Text
Ref. LCR 79-06B U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-272 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70 NO. 1 UNIT SALEM GENERATING STATION Public Service Electric and Gas Company hereby submits proposed changes to Facility Operating License No. DPR-70 for Salem Gen-erating Station, Unit No. 1.
This change request relates to Safety Technical Specifications (Appendix A) of the Operating License, and pertains to changes required for cycle 2 operation.
Respectfully submitted, PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY By:--K~l_,)~;p.~
("""'FREDERICK W. SCHNEIDER VICE PRESIDENT
Ref. LCR 79-06B
_____ S_TA'l'.E _QF __ NEW_J:ERSEy_) ______ _
)
SS:
COUNTY OF ESSEX
)
FREDERICK W. SCHNEIDER, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I signed the request for change to FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-70.
The matters set forth in said change request are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this jo -ti.
day of c47,,J ' 1979.
.,~e y a
/Jt,,__
1
. *;Notary Public of New Jersey My Com.mission expires on }ln-..-uvl<-Af:. I 91'.3 BARBARA VALLEE A NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Commission Expires Nov. 8, 1983
e
'9 SALEM 1 CYCLE 2 (REVISION 1)
Page 1 of 2 Region 1 - Standard 17 x 17 (2.26 w/o)
Region 4 - Standard 17 x 17 (2.80 w/o)
Region 2 -
Standard 17 x 17 (2.81 w/o)
Region 4A - Optimized 17 x 17 (2.80 w/o)
)
Region 3 *- Standard 17 x 17 (3.29 w/o)
~---
M L
K
.J H
G F
E C
I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
_. -I
-I [JCJtJ[;gCJL]CJ.._____
2 -----,-** CJCJITJI l~- 4 IH* 3 ll 1 ~* 3 ll1~* 9 II1i.slGDD __ -...
A*
Page 2 of 2
)
SALEM 1 CYCLE 2 (REVISION 1) 180° R-P N
M L
K J
H G
I=
E 0
c*
B A*
I 1
- I
! DDDDDOO.....____._
2 I DDDDDDDDDDD----.
3 DDDDDDGDDDDDDD
- 4 I DDDDDDDDDDDDD~
s-DDD*DDDDDDDDDDDD!
G-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.
)
1 DDDDDDDEJDGJDDDDD 1
e-DDGJDDDEJDEJDEJDEJDD*
9-DDDDDDDGJDDDDDDD 10-DDDDDDDDDDDDDDD l-DGJDDDDDDDDDDDDD 12 DDDDDDDDDDDDD 3
DDDDDDQJDDDDDD 14
- DDDDDDDDDDD
- )IS N~~d~~ Secondary Source DDDDDDD No. of Spent Burnable Poison Rods.
00
PROPOSED CHANGE HEAT FLUX HOT CHANNEL FACTOR -
FQ(Z)
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNIT NO. 1 Description of Change Revise the Fxy limits as contained in this section of the technical specifications.
Safety Evaluation FQ(Z), which is the primary power distribution parameter in the Technical Specifications for LOCA protection, is determined by the product of the radial Fxy and the axial F(Z) peaking factors.
In the event the Fxy is exceeded, continued operation is allowed provided the FQ(Z) limit is met.
Since reload cores exhibit flatter axial shapes, as indicated by lower F(Z), the revised Fxy limits will still result in FQ(Z) being within allowable limits.
For operation of cycle 2 and subsequent cycles of the Salem No. 1.
core, bounding values of the peaking factor FQ(Z) x (relative power) were calculated as a function of elevation by assuming various load follow transients on the reactor through insertion and withdrawal of control rod Banks C and D.
The effects of the accompanying variation in axial xenon and power distributions were also considered as described in the Salem FSAR.
Both be-ginning and end of cycle conditions were included in the cycle 2 calculations, and several different histories of operation were assumed in calculating effects of load follow transients on the axial power distribution.
Results of these calculations de-monstrate that the FQ(Z) limits will not be exceeded during operation of cycle 2.
Further evaluations indicate that the proposed F change will not cause the FQ(Z) limits to b~ ex-xy ceeded in projected reload cycles beyond cycle 2.
The FQ(Z) limit envelope will be reverified for each reload beyond cycle 2 to confirm this projection.
Therefore, this change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
- 2.4 2.2 2.0
,........, 1.8 r-Q) c::
0..
- I-- er LI...
§ 1.6 E -
x IO
- E l.4 1.2 1.0 Maximum [FQT.pRel] Versus Axial Core Height During Normal Operation
~~J~L... - -
.i:::~i:* i _:i::: x
. *--* -:-t:-::-7:-:*-1-~
i.. *:.
- i.
i (1
2 J*.... ____ _
)',-
Calculations based on eighteen case Mode A analysis.
~~-*:_._i ---
- -I
- .~ ________ j _____. __ :_
- : l -> :_: : i
...:......J---'--------.J:.
~-::::::::!*~.. ~-!.. **-*
. j
-***--~----------* ---
4 6
8 10 12 Core Height (feet)
- f.
~
.POWER.DISTRiBUTI ON LIMITS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (Continue_d_,__ _______________ _
- e.
- f.
- g.
b)
At least once per 31 EFPD, whichever occurs firs~.
- 2.
c
~-~
When the F is 1 ess than or equa 1 to the FK 1
- 1 ir.li t for xy xy the appropriate measured core plane, additional power distribution maps shall be taken and F C co~;ared to
- RTP L
xy F
and F at least once per 31 EFPO.
xy xp The F limits for RATED THERMAL POWER within specific core xy planes shall be:
- ~F~YP ~ 1.. 7 for asore p~nes co tainin\\b*nil\\:D" cont 1 rods and
~ ~
RTP <
- 55 fa a 11 un odded c e p I an s.
L~
X 7
AdJ c.__*-/IA c_A c?-.j t:J~l ft*c~. -1::..o f?/c-3/i2 2 -
The F limits of e, abovt, are not aoolicable ir. the fcl-xy lowing core plane regions as measured in percent of core height from the bottom of the fuel:
- 1.
Lm*1er cGre region froiil 0 to 15~;, inclusive-.
- 2.
Upper core region from 85 to 100~ inclusive.
- 3.
Grid plane regions at 17.8 + 2~, 32.1 + 2%, Cf.4 ~ 2~,
6 0. 5 + 2 ;~ and 7 4. 9 + 2 ;; ' i n cl us i v e.
- 4.
Core plane regions within + 23 of core hei;r.t (+ 2.83 inches) about the bank demand position of the bank C" control rods.
Evaluating the effects of F on F0(z) to determine if F0(z) is within its limit wheneve~YF C exceeds FL_
xy X.Y 4.2.2.3 When Fq(Z) is measured pursuant to specification 4.10.2.2~ an overall measured FQ(Z) shall be obtained from a power distribution ~ao and increased by 3% to account for manufacturing tolerances and further incfe~sed by 5% to account for measure~ent uncertainty.
SALEM - UN IT 1 3/4 2-7 Aiilend;-;;ent i\\o. 9, 16
Proposed addition to page 3/4 2-7
- 1.
For all core planes containing bank "D" control rods F
RTP L
- 1. 92 for core elevations up to 6.0 ft.
xy F
RTP L
- 1. 89 for elevations from 6. 0 to 12.0 ft* I and core xy
- 2.
For all unrodded planes Fxy RTP.::::..
- 1. 67 for elevations to 6. 0 ft.
core up F
RTP L
- 1. 65 for core xy elevations from 6. 0 to 12.0 ft.
PROPOSED CHANGE NUCLEAR ENTHALPY HOT CHANNEL FACTOR -
FiH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SALEM UNIT NO. 1 Description of Change Revise the FE.H technical specification, incorporating a rod bow penalty curve that is based on information that is currently approved by the N~C.
This curve combines the amount of rod bow versus burnup given in a Westinghouse submittal, NS-CE-1580, C. Eicheldinger (Westinghouse) to D. F. Ross, Jr. (NRC), dated October 24, 1977, with the rod bow penalty versus amount of gap.
closure given in an NRC letter J. F. Stolz (NRC) to T. M. Anderson (Westinghouse) dated April 5, 1979.
The curve in the NRC letter was converted by the fo~lowing methods:
1.8% change in DNBR equals 1.0% change in F4 H and the method of conversion from gap closure to region average burnup is contained in a Westinghouse submittal, NS-TMA-1760, T. M. Anderson to D. F. Ross, Jr., dated May 25, 1978.
This change would result in a reduction of the current rod bow penalty applied to Salem No. 1.
Safety Evaluation This change incorporates recent information on rod bow penalties and does not reduce the margin.of safety as defined in the basis for this specification or as defined in the FSAR.
Therefore, this change does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.
POWER DISTRIBUTION LIMITS
\\
NUCLEAR ENTHALPY HOT CHANNEL FACTOR - ~H---------------
LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION 3.2.*3
~H shall be limited by the following relationship:
~H !. 1.55 [LO+ 0.2 (1-P)] (I - RB PJ
_ THERMAL l'OWER where P - RATED THERMAL P"OWER RBP-
/?DJ Bo..,Pe_,,,,,._J-f:
a..s sfo,.,,..,
,*,,_ h~1'-t,,rC-3.2-3 APPLICABILITY:
MODE 1 l
v ACTION:
With ~~.exceeding its limit:
-a.
Reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 50% of RATED THERMAL POWER "Within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> and reduce the Power Range Neutron Flux-High Trip Setpoints to < 55% of RATED THERMAL POWER within the next 4
- hours,
- b.
Demonstrate thru in-core mapping that F~H is within its limit
~ithin 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after exceeding the limit or reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 5% of RATED THERMAL POWER within the next 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, and
- e.
Identify.and correct the cause of the out cf limit condition prior to increasing THERMAL POWER above the reduced limit required by a. or b. abRve; *subsequent POWER OPERATION may proceed provided that F~H is demonstrated through in-core mapping to be within its limit at a nominal 50~ of RATED THERMAL POWER prior to exceeding this THERMAL POWER, at a
- nominal 75% of RATED THERMAL POWER prior to exceeding this THERMAL power and within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after attaining 95% or greater RATED_ THERMAL POWER.
SALEM - UNIT 1 3/4 2-9 Amendment No. '
I
c:a Cl C>
a::
i
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01 0
0 5
10 SALEM UNIT l 15 20 REGION AVERAGE BURNUP {10 3 MHD/MTU)
FIGURE 3.2-3 ROD BOW PENALTY AS A FUNCTION OF BURNUP 25 30 33