ML19340B138
| ML19340B138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1980 |
| From: | TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340B137 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8010210484 | |
| Download: ML19340B138 (5) | |
Text
.
?
E?! CLOSURE 1 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TEC11NICAI. SPErIFIrATIONS BROWNS FFRRY PlUCt.FAR Pl. ANT tit!IT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-2%
4 o
4 lS 8010210fd
i t
' LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS i
4.5 CORE AND gotTTA HMEt_TP_gCOLHG 3.5 CORE AND CONTAINMENT SYSTfMS COOLING SYSTEMS l
J.
Linear Heat Generation J.
Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR)
, Rate (LHGR) l During steady state power The LHGR as a function of i
operation, the linear heat core height shall be generation rate (LHGR) of checked daily during any rod in any fuel reactor operation at 2 255 assembly at any axial rated thermal power.
location shall not exceed l
13.4 kW/ft.
l l
1 l
l If at any time during l
operation it is determined l
by normal surveillance that the limiting value for LHGR is being exceeded, action shall be initiated within 15 minutes to restore operation to within the
. prescribed limits.
If the LHGR'is not returned to within the prescribed limits within two (2) hours, the reactor shall be brought to the Cold Shutdown condition within 36' hours.
Surveillance 166 i
I A
e.
- 1. 5 ;)@!Uy!
gene ra tion it fuel pellet densification is postulated.
The LHGR shall be checked daily during reactor operation at 2 25% power to determine if-fuel burnup, or control rod movement has caused changes in power distribution.
For LHGR to be a limiting value below 25% rated thermal power, the MrPF would have to be greater than 10 which is precluded by a considerable margin when employing any permissible control rod pattern.
K.
Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)
At core thermal pose'r levels less than or equal to 25%, the reactor will be operating at minimum recirculation pump speed and the moderator void content will be very small.
For all designated control rod patterns which may be employed at this point, operating plant experience and thermal hydraulic analysis indicated that the resulting MCPR value is in excess of requirements-by a considerable margin.
With this low void content, any inadvertent core flow increase would only place operation in a more conservative mode relative to MCPR.
The daily requirement for calculating MCPR above 25% rated thermal power is sufficient since power distribution shifts are very slow when there have not been significant power or control rod changes.
The requirement for calculating MCPR j
when a limiting control rod pattern is approached ensures l
that MCPR will be known following a change in power or power shape (regardiass of magnitude) that could place operation at thermal limit.
t l.
L.
Re port ing Requirements The U10's associated with monitoring the fuel rod operating conditions are required to be met at all. times,.i.e., there is no-allowable time in which the plant can knowingly exceed l
-the limiting values for MAPLHGR, LHGR, and MCPR.
It is a i
requirement, as stated in Specifications 3.5.I,
.J, and
.K.
that if at any time during steady state power operation, it L
is determined that the limiting values for MAPLHGR, LHGR, or l
MCPR are exceeded action is then initiated to restore-l operation to within the prescribed limits.
This action is l
initiated as soon as normal surveillance indicates that an operating limit has been reached.
Each event involving
, steady state. operation beyond a. specified limit shall be 171
m
~
I
~..
l-I l
i i
- loqued and reported quarterly.
It must be recognized that there is always an action which would return any of the l
l' parameters (MA PLHGR, LHG R, o r ' MCPR) to within prescribed limits, namely power reduction.
Under most circumtances, 4
this will. not be the only alternative.
M.
References l
l
- 4. -Ceneric Reload. Fuel Application, Licensing Topical Report l
NELE-20411-P-A, and Addenda.
?
j.
1 l:
L l
l i~
l 178
[
E 9
L y.
)
3
--w r
-*6.
w r+--e r
y a
g---
y
e
- /.
(
ENCLOSURE 2 l-JUSTIFICATION 4
Reference 1 documents the NRC staff position that ".
it (is) acceptable to remove the 8x8 and 8x8R spiking penalty factor from the plant Technical Specifi-cation for-those operating BWRs for which it can be shown that the predicted worst-case maximum transient LHCRs, when augmented by t,he power spike penalty, do not violate'the exposure-dependent safety limit LHGRs".
1' j
The Browns Ferry '3 Reload 3 submittal contains the required information to remove f
' the power spiking penalty from the Technical Specifications. Section 10 (" Rod i.
Withdrawal Error") and Appendix A (" Fuel Loading Error") include the densifica-tion effect in the calculated LHGR.
t REFERENCES
" Safety Evaluation of the General Electric Methods for the Consideration 1
i of Power Spiking Due to Densification Effects in BWR 8x8 Fuel Design and l
- Performance", Reactor Safety Branch, DOR, May 1978.
T h
t s
4
[
T'
-p
--9y y
y 9
g 9
g wv
% g.
~
r
+
+r--T--*-"+"^
f"$
"C"*'