ML19256D055
| ML19256D055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1974 |
| From: | Grier B US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Anthony Giambusso US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19256D033 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910160779 | |
| Download: ML19256D055 (3) | |
Text
,
JUN 10 1974 A. Gianousso, Deputy Director for Ecactor Projects, L 1h7IRPRETATIO3 OF LICId5ED FOWI2 LDf1TS
'n'a have caserved taat licenses for various reactor facilities arm written vita different statements regarding licensed power levels.
For example "
is authorised to operate the facility at steady acate power levels up to a marim== of 1520 megawatts (thernal)".
In the es=c liccuse, the following paragrapa states in part "
anall operate the facility at power levels up to 1520 megavatts (thermal) in accordance with tha Tecnnical Specifications". Another licenaa scacca "This accadsent anchorizes operation of Unit 2 of the power station at steady state reactor core power levels not to exceed 3293 magavatts eneraals (100% of rated pover) in accordance with the Tehnie=1 Specifications attached...".
Still another license reads "_
is authorized to operate Unit No. 1 continuously at power levels no_t in excess of 2260 cegavatts (thertal),
201 of the rated power level of bait lio.1".
Another license reads "Tse licensee is authoriacd to eparate the facility at steady state reactor core power levels not in excess of 3293 megawatts thermal".
(Underscoring has been added in all cases.) We do not know whether any significanco should be attached to the different statements or whether the statements should be interpreted to mean the sana thing.
If it is assuned that the wording of the statement of licensed power icvel is significant then the different statements lead i:o a probles when one attc= pts to decide whether operation "at steady state power levcis up to a narha of 1520 megavatts (thermal)" implies that a licensee can operate at a nocinal level of 1520 megavatts (thernal) with so=e allowable swings above that icvel or whether 1520 megavatta represents the actual nazi =ua aut!:orized power level.
If the liccused power level is to be interpreted as a no-inni steady state value, then scae guidance is needed as to the allowabic nagnituae of deviation above such nominal values, both in terms of power and time.
Tha t is,
svings of 1-5 megawatts above the nenin=1 value for periods of a shif t may oe tolerabic, while operation at 5 or more megawatts above the
~
na'in-1 value for more than an hour or half hour nay be unacceptable.
1446 039 00R OR'GM 1o 18 o 77
A. clamousso
. JW 10 1974 There is a sinflar prosica vaca the licensee is autnorized to operata at steady state reactor core power levels not in execsa of 3293 ner;a-vacts tuarssi. Again, this implies that power fluctuations aucut 329J negawatts are accep21e, but the cagnitude of suctuations is not specified. ne use of " core power" is also not specific because thera is presently no direct method for messuring "cora powar".
It can only be determined from heat balas ce calculations vnich are used to provide a relationship to nuclear detector measurements.
There are apparently at least three different reasons for specifying cue authorized power level in a license.
Tacce are as icilows:
1.
Provide a basis for levying license fees.
In this case, apecifying a nominal==vi m ' authorized pcVer level would appear to be sufficient.
2.
Provide a basis for accident analysis, i.e.,
fission product inventory.
In this case, specifying a nominal value with an upper limit and a time limit for operation above the ac=inal value would appear to ba required.
3.
Provide a basis for operational safety limits.
In this casa, a nurser of different situations must be evaluated to decarmine the limiting value.
While this value should be consistent with
- 1. and 2. above, these limits on power icvel are more appropriaccly specified in the Technical Specifications.
'ie believe it would be advisable to develop a more precise specificatica or otatenant for the licensed power Im.1 and to use tant statenant unifornly. We su3 gest that something along the lines of the following would be appropriata:
is authorized to operate the facility at power icvels up to a ne'4"m1 level of 2000 negnvatts thernal.
Thornal power level as used here is enat power 1cvel deteruined by heat h=1=~ a calculations, with coatributious from sources other than the reactor cora (pump heat, etc.) appropriately suotracted.
In no cass /e the power invel to execed 1020 megawatts ther: mal and op ration at greater than 2000 negawatts caerzaal for more than 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> in any 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period is not pern!tted by this license." (I'2e numbers will need to be specific for each facility to provide reasonable ranges, but the statement should be uniform for all facilitics.)
300RORBiNAL uu 04o
JUN 10 1974 a, cianhusso until a more precise statanant of licensed power level can be agreed upon, guidanco is required in tna interpretation of the scatcmsmes in une areas discussed acovo.
iin sould apprec:ste your assistance la this =atter.
- 3. d. Criar, Assistant Director for Construction & Operation Directorata of 2egulatory Operations cc:
J. H. tiandtic, L D. F. Knuth, 30 l
H. k. Shapar, CCC I
I 300RORGNJL i
i 1446 04I RO ku aV. Seyfrit:bs BliGrict 6/7/74 6/7/74 j