ML19210A708

Tech Spec Change Request 80 Supporting Licensee Request to Change DPR-50,App a Re Revision to Accomodate Measured Cycle 4 Power Peaks Not Meeting Acceptance Criteria of 7.5% on Total Peak

ML19210A708
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	05/16/1978
From:	Herbein J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19210A707	List: ML19210A708
References
NUDOCS 7910310525
Download: ML19210A708 (9)

Text

_

METROPOLITAN EDISON CCMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO?@ANY AND PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Technical Suecification Change Request No. 80 This Technical Specification Change Request is submitted in support of Licensee's request to change Appendix A to Operating License No. DPR-50 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1. As a part of this request, proposed replacement pages for Appendix A are also included.

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY By /s/ J. G. Herbein Vice President Sworn and subscribed to me this 16th day of May , 1978.

/s/ George J. Troffer Notary Public 7910810 62 5 1490 294

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Operating License No. DPR-50 Docket No. 50-289 Technical Scecification Change Recuest No. 80 The licensee requests that the attached changed figures replace figures 2.3-2, 3 5-2E and 3.5-2H of the existing Technical Specifications.

Reasons for Change Request The attached figures have been changed to accommodate the measured Cycle h power peaks, which did not meet the acceptance criteria of 7.5% on the total peak. A nuclear uncertainty of 13 5% requires new APSR Position Limits, Power Imbalance Limits and RPS Setpoints.

Safety Analysis Justifying Chance The Safety Analysis LOCA initial conditions are preserved by the alarm and trip setpoints which restrict operational flexibility. The setpoints are determined based en a calculational model. The Physics Testing Program shows real core operation and it verifies that the core is operating within the bounds of the analysis . When the physics testing indicates measured values greater than the acceptance criteria, the discrepancy is accounted for by increased uncertainties and the alarm and trip setpoints are adjusted to further restrict operational flexibility to preserve the Safety Analysis LOCA initial conditions.

The computer code used for the revised Tech. Spec. limits was the same as for the original analysis - the FLAME 3 computer code. That is, the calculated relative peaks used ver* the same. The differences in the revised imbalance trip setpoints (RPS) and the operational imbalance and APSR position limits (LOCA) compared to those currently approved resulted from the use of a larger calculational uncertainty factor when adjusting the calculated peaks and cccparing them to the allowable ther=al criteria (CFM, DNB, LOCA) .

The magnitude of the calculational uncertainty factor was determined by using the larger of the measured / calculational discrepancies observed for the radial and total peaks during startup testing fer Cycle k. At 75% FP these discrepancies were 9 6 and 11.29% for the radial and tot al peaks, respectively. For con-servatism, 6% vas added to the calculation 21 uncertainty values of 5% for the radial peak and 7.5% for the total peak, yielding 11% and 13 5%. The use of these values to adjust FLAME 3 peaks ic conservative, since the RPS is not DN3 limited (strong dependence on radial peak) even with the 11% uncertainty applied to the radial peaks. The CFM criteria (total peak dependent) are limiting, and the 13 5%

uncertainty applied is over 2% greater than the discrepancy between =easured and calculated values. The same is true of the LCCA criteria which are also total peaking criteria.

With limits for fall power operation derived as described above, the assurance is preserved that the FAC ECCS limits vill not be exceeded and the thermal design criteria vill not be violated.

Figure 2.3-2 was changed to reduce the negative reactor pcVer Lnbalance from -17%

to -12% at breakpoint 32 , without changing the slopes between breakpoints. This adjustment is conservative since the core was Central Fuel Melt (CFM) limited for the RPS, and the total peak which sets CFM limits , had a measured to calculated discrepancy less than h% above the acceptance criteriun.

1490 295

Figure 3.T -dE was changed to reduce the negative axial power imbalance from

-23.h0% to -17.Th% at the 102% FP breakpoint, and from -21.59% to 17.83% at the 92% FP breakpoint.

Figure 3 5-2H vas changed to include power restrictions for APSR position limits between 0% and 6.1% vithdrawn.

The adjustments to Figure 3.5-2E and Figure 3 5-2H are also conservative since these limits are based on LOCA KW/ft criteria and are not set from predicted total peaks.

These changes to alarm and trip setpoints assare operation with complete protection with regard to DNS, CFM and LOCA criteria.

Amendment Class (10 CFR 170)

The licensee has determined that, because this requested ame;dment involves a single safety issue, this is a Class III Amendment (per 10 CFR 170.22).

The appropriate remitt;_.e, therefore, is $h,000.00.

Additional Information Per NRC verbal request of May 15, 1978, attached in support of this Technical Specification Change Request, is (a) Radial Peaking Facters, power map at 75%

full power; (b) Total Peaking Factors , power map at 75% full power; and (c) su= mary of Zero Power Physics Testing for TMI-1, Cycle k.

1490 296

v v

THERNAL POWER LEVEL 5

- 120

(-12,1083 - 110 (108) (17,108)

/t I - 100 l g, = 1,3 ACCEPTABLE N2 = -1.0 4 PUMP

-- 90 (35,90)

(-35,85) / OPERATION i I

(80.7) 50 ACCEPTABLE - 70 3 & 4 PUNP (35,62.7)

~

(-35, 57.7) /0PERATION-- 60 l I

, (53.1) g -- 50 I l ACCEPTABLE - 40 2,3, & 4 PUNP (35,35.1)

(-35,30.1) / OPERATION g _ 30 1

• -- 20 d I o

Y M $  !

• g a n 1 -- 10 -

l u E E E I I I I t a I f f f g g [ g 60 -50 -40 20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 w

Reactor Power imoalance, 5 PROTECTION SYSTEN MAXINUM d LOTABLE s SETPOINTS FOR REACTOR POWER INd4 LANCE TNI-1, CYCLE 4 (FROM 0 TO 125 + _ EFPD)

Figure 2,3-2 1490 297

s Power, % of 2535 MWt RESTRICTED REGION --110

-17.Th, 102 -

- 00 **I

[

L

-17.83, 92 s.25.92 90

-21.59, 80 <

V -

- 80 0

PERNISSIBLE OPERATING REGION 60

- - 50

- . 40 m

30

- 20

- 10 I i i i t i i I i I 40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 b

Axial Power imbalance, %

L POWER IMBALANCE ENVELOPE FOR OPERATION FROM 0 TO 125 1 5 EFPD TMI-1, CYCLE 4 Figu re 3. 5-2E 1490 298

J 57.9,102

• 6.1, 102 100 _

L RESTRICTED ,

'6.1, 92 90 - REGION V o, 80 57.9,80 80 70 -

$ 100,70 60

PERMISSl8LE

• OPERATING 50 -

f

=

REGION E 40 -

30 -

20 10 -

y I f f f f *l I f f 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -

APSR 5 withdrawn y APSR POSITION LIMITS FOR OPERATION FROM 0 TO 125 ! 5 EFPD THI-1, CYCLE 4 Figure 3.5-2H

~

0 1490 299

RADIAL PEAKING FACTORE 1550-08 Revision 2 DATA SHEET E2D1 h/17/78 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 0 929 1.097 1.251 1.010 1.258 0.837 0.812 0.726 0.932 f.063 1.207 0 990 1.19h 0.93h 0.786 0.801 1.25h 1.12h 1.209 1.0h9 1.205 0.863 0.76h 1.22h 1.058 1.131 1.07 8 1.166 0.851 0.803

- 1.377 1.102 1.121 0.906 1.13h 0.660

. Maximum Peak -

' 1.2h5 1.0hh 1.096 0.935 1.210 0.696 0.925 1.2h3 0 967 0.906 M o.986 1.1h9 0 9h6 1.002 LEGEND X.XXX Measured Value 1.051 1.086 0.637 N 1.13h 0.715 X.XX Predicted Value 1.013 0.h97 0 0.5h1 1.377 - 1.2h5 x 100 = + 9 59%

1.377

% wd.

Gp. 1-4 100 Gp. 5 100 Gp. 6 100 Gp. 7 85 Gp. 8 29 Power Level Th.6 gyp Effective Full Power Days 2.37 EFPD TECH. SPEC. CHA: IGE REQUEST 80 2h.0 ADDITIONAI INFORMATION Page 1 of 3

. 1550-08 i #

TOTAL PEAKING FACTORa "G 8N8 DATA SIM E2D2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.12h 1 307 1 516 1.216 1 536 1.065 0 993 0 915 H

1.12h l'.2h2 1.h13 1.132 1.h38 1.220 1.03h 1.0h1 1 503 1.h05 1.h6h 1.31h 1.h71 1.085 0 922 1.h39 1.2h1 1.313 1.295 1.h31 1.072 1.035 1.719 1.3h6 1.h51 1.078 1.h18 0.817 Maximum Peak i 1 525 1.2h8 1.h08 1.096 1 501 0.882-1.092 1 516 1.150 1.085 M 1.175 1.387 1.110 1.230 LEGEND X.XXX Measured Value 1.333 1.307 0.778 N

X.XX Predicted Value 1.232 1.380 0.881

- - - - - ~ ~ - -

0 595 0

0.657 1.719 - 1.525 x 100 = 11.29%

1.719

% vd.

Cp. 1-4 100 Gp. 5 100 Gp. 6 100 Gp. 7 85 Gp. 8 29 Power Level Th.6 %FP Effective Full Power Days 2.37 EFPD TECH. SPEC. CHANGE REQUEST 80 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 2 of 3 25.0 1490 301

SUMMARY

OF ZERO POWER PHYSICS TESTING FOR TMI-1 CYCLE h Test Predicted Worth Measured Werth

1. All rods out boron 1226 1 100 ppm 1231 ppm concentration

2. First isothermal tempera- -1.1 X 10  % +2.6 X 10" % Ak/k/ F ture coefficient (1215 Ak/k/ F (123h ppts) ppms) i h X 10 % Ak/k/ F Moderator temperature coefficient shall be less than + 5 X 10 -3 % Ak/k/ F at zero power to assure a nonpositive temperature coefficient above 95% power.

3 Group 7 Integral Rod 1.37 1 0.21 % Ak/k 1.h8 % Ak/k Worth

h. Group 6 Integral Rod 1.00 1 0.15% Ak/k 1.07 % Ak/k Worth 5 Group 5 Integral Rod 1.2h i 0.19% Ak/k 1.h2 % Ak/k Worth

6. Groups 5-7 Total Rod Worth 3.61 1 0 36 % Ak/k 3.97% Ak/k 7 Shutdown margin >1.0% Ak/k verification (vorst rod stuck out)

8. Ejected rod < 1.0% Ak/k Error adjusted maximum ejected rod - 0.98". Ak/k Control rod at D h using boron swap method w/ Group 5,0% vithdrawn Control rod at N-12 using boren swap method - 0.83% Ak/k Centrol rod at N h using rod swap method with Group 5 -

0.898% Ak/k Control rod at D-12 using rod swap with Group 5 - 0.85% Ak/k TECH. SPEC. CHANGE REQUEST 80 ADDITICNAL INFORMATION Page 3 of 3 1490 70?