ML18092B305
| ML18092B305 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B306 | List: |
| References | |
| NLR-N86108, NUDOCS 8610100775 | |
| Download: ML18092B305 (7) | |
Text
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeil!, Jr.
Vice President -
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Nuclear October 3, 1986 NLR-N86108 LCR 86-05 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Director PWR Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing A
Dear Mr. Varga:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 SALEM GENERATING STATION -
UNIT NO. 1 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and the regulations thereunder, we hereby transmit copies of our request for amendment and our analyses of the changes to Facility Operating License DPR-70 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 1.
The amendment consists of replacing the Fxy limits with statements referring to the Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report, which provides for a cycle-by-cycle determination of the Fxy (z) limits without the need to submit Fxy Technical Specification changes.
This request is similar to one approved by the Commission for Unit No. 2.
A copy of the Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report for Salem Unit 1 refueling cycle 7 is also provided.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $150.00 as required by 10 CFR 170. 21.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.
This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies.
8610100775 861003 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
~,
Mr. Steven A. Varga 2
10-3-86 Should there be any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely, C
Mr. D. H. Fischer USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. J. Kenny USNRC Senior Resident Inspector
Ref:
LCR 86-05 STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS.
COUNTY OF SALEM Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated Oct. 3, 1986, concerning our Request for Amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-70, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Subscri~ and Sworn to J:2.~fore me this 3 day of
(/~~, 1986 LARAINE Y. BEARD
/.A Note~ ~ublic of New Jersey Y Commission Expires May l; 1 ; ? /
My Commission expires on
Radial peaking Factor Limit Report This R~diaL.Peaking Factor Limit Report is provided in accordance with Paragraph.6:9~1.9: of the Sale~
Unit l Nuclear Plant Technica1*specifications.
The Fxy limits for RATED THERMAL POWER within specific core planes for Cycle 7 shall be.:
- 1.
For all core pl~nes containing bank "D" control rods:
FRTP xy_ < 1.92 for* core elevations up to 6.0 ft.'
FRTP < 1.89 for core elevations from 6.0 to 12.0 ft. '
xy
- 2.
For all unrodded planes; RTP < 1.67 for core-elevations 6.0 ft.' and F
up to xy FRTP xy
< 1.65 for core elevations from 6.0to 12.0 ft.
and The~e F~y(z) limits were ~sed t~ confirm that ~he heat flux hot channel factor FQ(z) will be limited to the Technical Specifi-cation values of:
for P > 0. 5 a'nd, FQ(z) ~ [4.64] * [K(z)]
for P <- *o. s
_assuming the most limiting axial° power distributions expected to result-from the insertion artd removal of control banks C and D during operation, including the accompanying variations in the axial xenon and power distributions as described in the "Power Distribution Control and Load Following Procedures",
WCAP-8385, September, 1974-.
Therefore, these Fxy* limits provide assurance that the initial conditions assumed in the LOCA analysis are met, along with the ECCS acceptance criteria of 10CFRS0.46.
See_ Figure 1 for a plot of [FQT"PRell vs~ Axial Core Height.
WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2 FIGURE l I I 6.2.321
~ "v I
IY* ~
- '")c r"""I 2.2
- ~
~- vii*
.io....
~
- 10. a.2. 1sf
-~
. I,
,~
)('. ~
! p.
IX
'~
~
- 1. 8 a:
c..
1-0 u..
<[
- 1. 6
- 5 12.1.sol
~
- 1. 4 1.2
'Ji!*
)!lo.
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 CORE HEIGHT (FEET)
Maximum T
axial FQ *Prel versus core height during normal core operation
PROPOSED CHANGE-TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM. UNIT NO. 1
- DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE LCR 86-05 Page 1 of 2 Revise Technical Specification 4.2.2.2.e and Basis 3/4.2.2 as indicated on the attached changed pages~
The change replaces the Fxy limits with statements referring to the Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report, which provides for a cycle-by-cycle determination of the Fx (Z) limits without the need to submit
_ Fxy Technical Specif icalion changes.
Note that the proposed change references Technical Specification 6.9.1.9 requiring.
submittal of the Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report.
License Change Request 84-01 reorganizes Section 6.
This change reflects
_the reorganization in anticipation of approval of 84-01 and uses the new section number.
REASON FOR CHANGE The purpose of the current Fxy Technical Specification Limit is design verification.
The Fxy limit is a review criterion whtch is used to verify that the design neutronic calculations associated with the Reload Safety Evaluation are conservative.
The Radial Peaking Factor Limit Report allows for cycle-by-cycle changes in the Fxy limit, which reflect the variations to be expected based on the design calculations.
A similar change request for Unit 2 was submitted as LCR 83-02, dated January -31, 1983, and was approved by the Commission in Admendment 19, dated May 5, 1983.
The proposed change makes the Unit 1 specification identical to that of Unit 2, and brings it into conformance with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specification (NUREG-0452, Revision 4).
SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION The proposed change to the Technical Specifications is administrative in nature in that it is being made to achieve-con~istency to a previbusly approved change.
The change does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operation in accordance with this change would not:
- 1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously-evaluated~
The change involves only the surveillance of Fxy as a verification of the design models and only changes the method of documenting Fxy limits.
- 2.
Create the possibility of ~ new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
There are no equipment, instrument, or setpoint changes related to the proposed change to Technical Specifications.
LCR 86-05 Page 2 of 2
- 3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The actual margin of safety as defined in the basis for th~ FQ technical specification remains unchanged, since the FQ limit is unchanged.
The radial peaking factor Fxy(z) is measured periodically to provide assurance that the hot.channel factor Fo(z) remains within its limit.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (48FR14870, dated April 6, 1983).
The proposed change corresponds to Example ( i) for purely administrative changes to achieve consistency.