ML19290A269
| ML19290A269 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1978 |
| From: | Herbein J METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290A268 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910310574 | |
| Download: ML19290A269 (13) | |
Text
.
- E?OFCLITA'i DISO:I CCMPA'IY LI' JET CC:EANY JERSEY CDTRAL PC'JER 3c A'!D PE'CISYLVA' IIA ELECTRIC COMPEIY THREE MILE ISLA'D IiUCLEA?. STATICN U:i!T 1 Operating License :Io. DPR-50 Oceket No. 50-289 Technical Specification Chanze Pequest '!o. 70, Arendment A
'"his Technical Specification Change Request is submitted in support of Licensee's request to change Appendix A to Operating License No. D?R-50 fcr Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1.
As a part of this request,
proposed replacement pages for Appendix A are also included.
IE"'EOPOLITXI DISON COMPXTl 4
/
~
ry
~
r 7ich fresicent Svern and subscribed to ne this 3 F M day of N
, i973.
i r/
xv
- Ictary Public (/
,L.
..L.
~. ** q -[.,*
A'**.
e l, %
- ~
~......,aa.;,,_.~
~
1563 285 79103103 7
U:IITED STATES OF A' ERICA
!iUCLEAR REGULATCRY CC:CIISSION I:I THE MATTER CF DOC:CET NO. 50-289 LICE:ISE ::0. DFE-50 METRCPOLITXi EDISCII CCMPA IY This is to certify that a copy of Technical Specification Change Request
- To. 70, Amendment A to Appendix A of the Operating License for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1, has, en the date given telev, been filed with the U. S. Nuclear Regd atory Cc==ission and been served cn the chief executives of Lcndonderry Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania and Dauphin County, Pennsylvania t'/ deposit in the United States nail, addressed as follows:
Mr. '4eldon 3. Arehart Mr. Harry B. Reese, Jr.
Ecard of Supervisors of Ecard of County Cc==issioners Londonderry Tcunship of Dauphin County R. D. #1, Geyers Church Road Dauphin County Court House Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057 Harrisburg, Fennsylvania 17120
- ETROPCLITri EDISC:I COMPA:IY
/ f/
37
/
Vice President Dated:
Atril 3, 1973 1563 286
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1)
Docket No. 50-289 Operating License No. DPR-50 Technical Specification Chance Request No. 70, Amendment A The Le censee requests that the attached revised Figures 2.1-2, 3.5-2A, 3 5-20, 3.5-2E, and 3 5-2H replace the corresponding figures of Technical Specification Change Request No. 70, submitted January 9,1978.
Reasons for Amendment A On January 9,1978, Metropolitan Edison Company submitted Technical Specification Change Request No. 70, TMI-1 Cycle h Technical Specifications.
In view of the nationwide coal strike's potential impact on Met-Ed's generating capabilities, on February 17, 1978, Met-Ed submitted Technical Specification Change Request No. 72, TMI-l Cycle 3 Extension Technical Specifications, which would allow extending Cycle 3 operation fro: 270 +
10 EFPJ to 315 EFPD. On March 7,1978, NRC issued Amendment No. 38, T'4I-l Cycle 3 Extension, in response to Met-Ed Technical Specification Change Request No. 72.
Technical Specification Change Request No. 70, addressed Cycle h operating parameters after a Cycle 3 burn of 270 + 10 EFPD. As a result of the Cycle 3 extension, it became necessary to revise the Cycle h submittal to address those operating parameters that changed. Technical Specification Change Request No. 70, Amendrent A is being submitted to address the above changes.
Furthermore, as a result of reviewing a Quadrant Flux Tilt problem experienced at another plant, it was determined that the cross-core fuel movement may have enhanced the magnitude of the quadrant tilt. Technical Specification Change Request No. 70, Amendment A is also being submitted to address a non-crcss-core fuel shuffle schete and the changes associated with this fuel chuffle scheme.
Safety Evaluation Justifyinc knendment A As a result of events which have occurred subsequent to submittal of the TMI-l Cycle L Reload Report and Proposed Technical Specificatiens (Technical Specification Change Rcquest No. 70, January 9,1978), it became necessary to conduct a review and, in some cases, a re-evaluation of the Cycle h submittal.
This reviev was prompted by two changes:
(1) Cycle 3 was extended beycnd the 270 + 10 EFFD basis used in developing the Cycle h design. The actual ECC-3 burnup was 267.1 EFFD's.
For conservation, the results o' '"a n-ysis reviewel herein acsured an ECC-3 exposure of 315 r rne, m.s s.
(2) The submitted fuel loading pattern was changed by not employing an effective 1800 rotation of expcsed fuel assemblies achieved by cross-core shuffling. A fuel assembly vill now be shuffled within the same quadrant which it resided in Cycle 3, and the asse=bly's new core location vill be 1/8th core synnetric to its core location previcusly submitted. This revision was adopted to minimize the magnitude of potential quadrant pcVer tilting in Cycle h by eliminating an aug=entation effect on previous cycle tilts.
Although these changes are fairly minor, a conservative re-evaluation has been conducted in order to expedite the analysis. Consequently, it was necessary to revise a small number of the preposed Technical Specifications provided earlier.
The attached Technical Specification revisions to the TMI-l Cycle h submittal have been reviewed with respect to safe operaticn of Cycle h frc= 0 to 130 EFPD's.
Before each revision is discussed, it may be stated in su= nary that these =cdified Technical Specifications ccabined with those unchanged frem the original Cycle h Technics 1 Specificaticn previously submitted, result in an extremely conservative set of operating requirements for the first 130 EFPD's of TMI-l Cycle h.
It is important to note tl all changes being reviewed in this report resulted frcs the assumed extensic:) of Cycle 3 to 315 EFPD's and not from the noneross-core shuffling scheme. Also, although these revised Technical Specifications are applicable to the operation of Cycle h fres 0 to 130 EFPD's, certain analysea conservatively assume a Cycle h length beyond this exposure, and will be identified accordingly. The remaining analyses consisted of conservative evaluations, performed to expedite the licensing cf Cycle h for 130 EFPD's of operation. A subsequent submittal refining all analyses to support the operation of Cycle k to 280 EFFD's vill be forthec=ing in May, 1978.
Specifically, only two Technical Specification sections required revision.
Section 2.3, " Limiting safety System settingc, Protection Instrumentation",
and Section 3 5.2, " Control Red Group and Power Distributien Limits" required revised figures. As discussed above, the new figures attached cover Cycle h cperation from 0 to 130 EFFD's based en a Cycle 3 lifetime up to 315 E:TD's.
With respect to Section 2.3, fuel nelt margins and steady-state DN3 =argins to limiting linear heat rates were reviewed for impact on the Core Protection Safety Linits and Set Points for the first 130 ErPD of Cycle L.
Centerline fuel melt margins versus reactor power imbalance indicated a slight decrease in margin fer negative imbalance conditions due to the extension of Cycle 3 This necessitated a change in Figure 2.12 from a hh5 to -395 inbalance safety limit. McVever, beer.use instrument capability is more limiting, Figure 2.3-2 does not change. Therefore, trip-dependent limits are not affected for the cpeation of Cycle h to 130 EFPD's.
The pressure-temperature limit curves, the correspcnding variable low pressure trip ' unction, and the flux / flav trip setpoints are based upon design peaking rather than calculated peaking. The 0-130 EFFD Cycle h margin between calculated nuclear pin peaks and the reference design peaks used for thernal-hydraulic analysis was found to increase due to the Cycle 3 extension. There-f:re, all technical specifica icn limits based on design peaking remain ecn-servative for 0-130 EFFD of Cycle a.
f O(' b ),
2
. The thermal-hydraulic rod bov penalty and fuel temperature / pin pressure analyses were reviewed for applicability during 0-130 EFFD Cycle h operation.
Both the maximum assembly burnup (3126174Dhru) and the hot assembly burnup (165h8 MWD /MTU) at EOC h (280 EFFD's), assuming a 315 EFFD EOC-3, were well below the assembly burnup assumed for the rod bov penalty (33000 74DhCU).
Also, the calculated maximum pin burnup (35638 M.TDSCU) and pin pcVer history were enveloped by the values used for the fuel temperature / pin pressure analysis.
The mechanical performance of the fuel was found to be acceptable relative to cladding stress, strain and creep collapse for 0-130 EFPD of Cycle h.
These results are also conservative in that Cycle 3 only burned to 287.1 Errus. There-fore, all technical specification limits based on fuel integrity remain conservative for a Cycle h operation to 130 EFFDs.
The boric acid storage requirements of Technical Specification 3.2 were reviewed.
The original Cycle h requirements were found to be adequate for 0-130 EFPD Cycle h plant operation.
The 2-hour thyroid dose was reanalyzed assuming an extension of Cycle 3 to 315 EFFDs and a Cycle h of 280 EFPDs. The upper bound en the thyroid dose changed frc= a 155 value to 16% in excess of the FSAR value. Nevertheless, the Cycle h doses remain only a very small fraction of 10 CFR 100 limits. Again, this change is conservative relative to the actual Cycle 3 burnup (287.1 EFPDs), and is accept-able for a Cycle h operation to 130 EFFDs.
A review of safety accidents was based en a ec=bination of conservative estimates and predicated Cycle h values. These revised parameters are ec= pared in Table 1 vith the original Cycle h safety parameters and those used in the FCAR. The ECC values were derived frc= extended cycle study and bound the most negative Doppler and Moderator coefficients expected. Since Cycle 3 was extended only 7.1 EFPD beyond the Cycle h design basis of 280 EFFD and Cycle h should not exceed 280 EFFD's, the expected values for these parameters should vary little frc= their original predicted values.
In either case, the values fall vithin the FSAR parameters / analysis, and are certainly ccuservative for operation to 130 EFPDs.
The Dcppler and Moderator coefficients at 30C h became =cre negative due to the assumed extension of Cycle 3 to 315 EFFD's; hence, the criginally predicted, more conservative values are presented. The remaining parameters were calculated based en the aferenentioned assumption of a 315 EFFD Cycle 3.
Through a ec=parison of the parameters in Table 1 with those used in the FSAR analysis it is concluded that the FSAR accident results continue to be =cre severe. The actual Cycle 3 operation of 287.1 EFFD and the restricted applicability to 130 EFPD in Cycle h provide even further con tism.
Sectica 3.5.2, " Control Rod Group and Pcwer Distribution Limits", was reviewed for changes in shutdown margin, ejected rod worth and peaking cargin to LOCA kv/
ft limits for the first 130 EFFD of Cycle h.
A ec=bination of conservative estimates, discussed belcv, and actual calculations led to the revision of Figures 3.5-2A, 3.5-20, and 3 5-2E.
Calculations indicate that the efected rod worth decreased slightly, the stuck rod worth increased slightly, and.the total red worth available for shutdcun decreased slightly assuming the extension of the Cycle 3 to 315 EFFD's.
The everall effect er Cycle h's minimum shutdevn cargin at 233 EFFDs, was a decrease frc= 2.325 to 2.125, remaining well above the 15 recuirement.
hhh
L-For conservatism, the shutdown nargin limit curves for Figures 3.5-2A and. 5-2C vere taken from the much more limiting analyses for 125 + 5 to 265 + 15 EFPDs presented in the original Cycle h Reload Report. The soie restrictive zero rod index point for the shutdcvn targin limit curve was the result of reanalysis.
The LOCA-limited points at 924 and 1025 FP on Figure 3.5-2A vere re-evaluated and f cund to be conservative with respect to the analysis pre-sented in the original Cycle h Technical Specification submittal and, therefore, re=ain unchanged. For conservatism, the previous LCCA-li=ited value at 80% was imposed at 70% FP, making the operating limit more restrictive. This core condition was analyzed and was found to give an increased positive margin to more limiting LOCA limits relative to the submitted analyses. The 15% full power limit was chosen to lie beyond the shutdown =argin limit curve. Analysis gave positive margin to the more limiting ejected rod limit. The Hot Zero Power point is limited by the ejected rod worth and is more limiting than the previous subrittal since the integral group rod worths per 5 insertion utilized were more restrictive than the calculated values used for the original Cycle h sub=ittal. Therefore, a more restrictive condition resulted.
Figure 3.5-2C for 2 and 3 pump operation was developed by pcver scaling the limiting boundary for the " Permissible Regicn" of Figure 3.5-2A in recognition of the ordinate of Figure 3.5-2C.
The conservative shutdown ca rgin limit of Figure 3.5-2A vas not scaled, adding additional conservatiss to that limit in Figure 3.5-2C.
In Figure 3.5-2E the LOCA peaking margin calculated at 1025 FP decreases sc=e-what for negative offset conditions with the 315 EFFDs Cycle 3 basis. The other points given on this figure all have a positive margin to the LCCA kv/ft limit, and the change is therefore conservative.
Based on the above discussiens, the changes in Figures 3.5-2A, 3.5-2C and 3.5-2E are =cre restrictive in nature and are conservative for operation of Cycle h to 130 EFPDs.
Figure 3.5-2H is attached as a correction to a plotting error given on the original submittal where the 57.95 withdrawn AFSR limit was nisplotted.
A revised Figure 3-1 (Core Loading Diagran for TMI-l cycle h) to the submitted Cycle h Reload Report reflects the revised core loading as a result of the non-cross-core shuffling.
Further revised Reload Report pages reflecting the extension in burnup of Cycle 3 to 2871 EFPDs vill accompany the Technical Specification revisiens submittal in May, 1973.
3ased on the above safety evaluation review it can be concluded that the revised Technical Sp2cification changes to those previously submitted for TMI '_'s Cycle h are conservative and support a full power Cycle h operation f ar 0 te 130 EFFDs without endangering the health and safety of the public.
6 90
TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF KEY ACCIDENT AND TRANSIENT PARAMETERS FOR CYCLE h Revised FSAR and densif'n Conservative Estimate Original Parameter report value or Predicted Value Predicted Value llh 5
5
-5 Doppler coerr (BOC), Ak/k/ F
-1.17 x 15
-1.49 x 10
-1.49 x 10 5
5 5
Doppler coerr (EOC), Ak/k/ F
-1.33 x 10
-1 7 x 10
-1.59 x 10
~
~
~
Moderator coerr (BOC), Ak/k/ F
+0 5 x 10 "
-0.63 x 10 "
-0.63 x 10 "
Moderator coerr (EOC), Ak/k/ F
-3.0 x 10 "
-2.8 x 10 "
-2.52 x 10 "
~
~
~
A.1L rod droup worth, % Ak/k 10.0 8.53 8.71 Initial boron cone. ppm 1200 101h 1084 Horon reactivity worth (70 F), ppm /1% Ak/k 75 Th Th Max ejected rod worth (HFP), % Ak/k 0.65 0.25 0.28 Dropped rod worth (HFP), % Ak/k 0.46 0.20 0.20 g
Os W
N 4
Figure 3-1.
CORE LOADit:G DI AGRAM FOR TMI-1, CYCLE 4 1
A 6
6 6
6
~6 C7 Ell C9 3
6 6
6 4
4 4
6 6
6 7
D7 B7 C6 34 D6 B12 C10 39 G12 C
4 6
4 (Cy2) 5 (Cya 5
(Cy2) 6 4
on t e-9=
G4 B5 A6 D6 A8 D10 A10 Bil D9
'D 6
6 4
5 5
4 5,
4 5
5 4
6 6
ly'13 cl1 D12 D5 a6 slo Dll 314 c14 E
G2 E2 ccy13 cc71) 6 4
5 lc 4
5 5
4 5
4 6
7e ge i
F3 F13 F1
,E4 C3 C3 A9 E8 Cl3 E12 FIS If{2)
I${2) l' 6
6 6
6 5.
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
G3 D2 F4 F2 H5 A7 GS G15 H12 F14 F12 D14
- G13, g
,6 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
6 L4 E3 F4 M13 F12 H
f/
(Cyl)
(Cyl) f (Cyl:
(Cyl)
(Cyl)
~
6 4
3 6
IC.
1C IC IC 1C K3 N2 L4 L2 H3 K1 KB R9 Hll L14 L12 N14 K13 N
6 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
5 4
6 (C 2)
L1 M4
?3 M9 R7 98 013 M12 L15 f-6 6
(C )
23 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
6 6
i
/I
~
C 1)
Y3 I
I 6
4 5
4 4
6 f/
N7 P5 R6 N6 RS N10 R10 Pil K12 5
6 4
5 5
4 5
4 5
5 4
6 6
]
y
(*Cy 2 )],.Iyl)
P1 O
2
( f' 6
4 g
2B
' 1C 2a P
/
c7 MS 09 6
6 6
4 4
4 6
6 6
3 6
6 6
6 6
1 1
2 3
V 5
s 7
9 7
10
//
/2
/3 If
/r XXX Previous Cycle locatic, (except as noted)
X Batch
Thermal Power Level, 7
-- 120 I
(-39,112)
DNBR Limit (il2)
(44.112)
-- ll0 ACCEPTABLE 4 PUMP
-- 100 Kw/Ft Kw/Ft OPERATION Limit Limit
(_39,g7,,)
-- 90 (87.1) 2 (44,87.1)
(-57.80)
-- 80 (60,80)
ACCEPTABLE 3&4 PUMP
-- 70 OPERATION
(-39,59.6)
__ 60 (59.6) 3 (44.59.6)
(-5 6. 3. 5 6. 3)
(58.4,58.4)
ACCEPTABLE
-- 50 2,3 & 4 PUMP (49.2.49.2)
(-46.4,46.4)
OPERATION
-- 40
--. 30 20 10 f
1 i
t i
f i
i I
I I 50
-40 20
-10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 Reactor Power imbalance, 7, Curve ReactorCoolantFlow(lb/hr) 6 i
139.8 x 10 6
2 104.5 x 10 6
3 68.8 x 10 CORE PROTECTION SAFETY LIMITS TMl-1, CYCLE 4 Figure 2.1-2 1563 293
D A
P 2
P F M E 5
U P 5 3
4 1 e
r R 5 u
O 2 g
F 1
i 4
F S O T T E I
L M 0 C I
Y L M C O
N R O F I
I N
T N T I
O S
I O T P A R
D E 0 P R O 0
0 0g 0
1 3
F R L F f.
E E O2 WV i9 OE U 5
PLC =
2 7 t 7
5 2
E 0
2 L
s 9
l 0
7 B
i 1
D 5
0t p
u 5
E S
2 5
uo 7
7 T
I r
0 M
2 2
CI 7,
E G
R R
P T
8 5
5t 0 I S
4 i
2 2
10 2
2 2
R 0
1 0
0 3
2 0
2 0I 5
i 7 n 5t w
7 1
ar d
0 h
5 i
1 w
5 0 t 5 i 0i 6
8 5
6 1
p 1
0.
f, uo 3
G r
a x
0 5 e 5i 0i 1
d 2
1 2
n i
d 5
o 1
R 8.
0 1
0 6
1 5
t 5 e 7
0 7
5 p
uo
, 0 0e r
5 5
G
, 5 5i 2
2 1
j O
0i 0
0 0
9 0
0, 0
0 0
0 1
9 8
7 6
c 4
3 2
1 0
_ WOW N<h e) $N
- f
% g c.
2no.002 100 2C0.102 NOT ALLOWED 90
~
2ss.es 80 70 S
- CO PERMISSIBLE 5
I 50 ise so O
st 14 0 J
RESTRICTED
! 30 FOR 2 & 3 c
PUMP 20 118.15 10
-0.1 9 0
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 Rod Index, % Withdrawn 0
25 50 75 100 R0D POSITION LIMITS FOR 2& 3 PUMP OPERATION FROM 0 T0 125 1 5 EFPD Group 7 0
2,5 59 7,5 100 TMI. CYCLE 4 Gr up 6 0,
25 5,0 7,5 100 Figure 3.5-2C n
Group 5 U
N 4
LJ1
Power, 7. of 2535 MWt RESTRICTED REGION
--Il0
-23.40.102 10.25.102
-100
-21.59,92 9.25,92
-- 90
- 80
~~
PERMISSIBLE OPERATING REGION
__ 60 50
. 40 30
- 20
-- 10 i
i i
i I
f I
I I
I 40
-30
-20
-10 0
10 20 30 40 50 Axial Power imbalance, Is POWER IHBALANCE ENVELOPE FOR OPERATION FROM 0 T0 125 1 5 EFPD TMI-l, CYCLE 4 Figure 3.5-2E 1563 296
57.9.102 100 RESTRICTED 90 GION 57.9,80 80 70 100,70 m
M N
60 PERMISSIBLE g
50 f
REGION
=
E 40 30 20 10 f
f I
f f
I I
f 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 APSR 5 witndrawn APSR POSITION LIMITS FOR OPERATION FROM 0 TO 265115 EFP0 TMI-1, CYCLE 4 Figure 3.5-2H 1563 297