ML19344B171

Application to Amend License NPF-2 Authorizing Changes to Tech Spec 4.2.2.2.e.2 Revising Fxy Surveillance Requirements.Safety Evaluation Determining That Change Does Not Involve Unreviewed Safety Question Encl

ML19344B171
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	08/15/1980
From:	Clayton F ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19344B172	List: ML19344B171 ML19344B173
References
NUDOCS 8008250695
Download: ML19344B171 (3)

Text

.,

Alabam3 Power Company

~

600 Nortti 18th Street Post Offic] Box 2641 Birmingh m. Alabam3 35291 Telephone 205 250-1000 F. L CLAYTON, JR.

Senior Vice President gghggg g August 15, 1980 rne southem electrc system Docket No. 50-348 Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Change to Operating License No. NPF-2 Technical Specification Gentlemen:

Alabama Power Company proposes the attached change to the Joseph M.

Farley Nuclear Plant Operating License No. NPF-2, Technical Specification 4.2.2.2.e.2, involving Fxy surveillance requirements.

The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Operations Review Board have reviewed the above proposed change and have determined that the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question as shown in the attached safety evaluation.

The class of the item in this proposed amendment is designated as Class III, according to 10CFR, Part 170 requirements. A check for $4,000.00 is enclosed to cover the fees required.

In accordance with 10CFB50.30(c)(1)(1), three (3) signed originals and thirty-r,even (37) additional copies of this proposed amendment are enclosed.

1 If you have any questions, please advise. Od

' s Yours very truly,

. WSM F. L. Clayto Jr. 000,0 0 FLCJr/TNE:aw Attachments SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORF ME THIS /[ DAY OF /74 cuff l cc: Mr. R. A. Thomas Mr. G. F. Trowbridge 1980[. q sh/

I

/ /u Notary Public V My Commission Expires:

l 1

l B ooseso g,9 g.

SAFETY EVALUATION FOR JOSEPH M. FAdLEY NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 F -PEAKING FACTOR CHANGE BACKGROUND:

Recent analysis for the remaining Cycle 2 and the upcocing Cycle 3 operation of J. M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Unit 1 shows the need to revise the radial peaking factor (Fx7) limit in the Technical Specifications.

REFERENCES:

(1) Technical Specification 4.2.2.2, B3/4 2-4 (2) WCAP-8385, " Power Distribution Centrol and Load Following Procedures", -

September, 1974.

BASES:

The heat flux hot channel factor Fq (z), which is the primary power distribution parameter in the Safety Analysis and Technical Specifications (Reference 1) for loss of coolant accident (LOCA), constitutes the product of radial and axial (P(z)) peaking factor. Recent analysis and subsequent discussions with Westinghouse on the remaining Cycle 2 and the upcoming cycle 3 operation demonstrates that revising the current Fxy limit in the Technical Specifications will assure that Fq (z) limits are met when F valves are acceptable. The F limit (Figure 1)isdeterminedbydivYding the F9 (z) limit (2.32 x K(z))*Ey the -imn of P(z) at each elevation, which is the limiting value of P(z) generated from load follow transients on the reactor through insertion and removal of control banks C and D.

The effects of the accompanying variation in axial Xenon and power distribution were also considered as described in Reference (2). Compliance with the Fxy limit therefore assures that Fq (z) is in compliance with its limit (2.32 x K(z)).

End of life Cycle 2 and the entire Cycle 3 conditions were included in the transient calculations, and several different histories of operation were assumed in calculating effacts of load follow transients on the axial power distribution. The maximum axial power distribution combined with the radial peaking factor assumed in this analysis shows that the heat flux hot channel factor (F (z))

q is acceptable. However, when the same maximum axial peaking factor is combined with the current F xy limit from Technical Specifications, the resulting Fq(z) in the 40 to 60% axial height slightly exceeds the limit.

By reducing the current F limit in the 20 to 60% axial height from 1.75 m 1.70,thepredictedFq(z)iortheupcomingCycle3operationisassuredto remain within the limit by compliance with the revised Fxy. The remainder of Cycle 2 will also remain within the F q(z) limit.

. , e q PEAKING FACTOR CHANGE cage 2 CONCLUSION:

~

Since the present Fq(z) limits will not be changed, there is no decrease in safety margin associated with the proposed change in F y limits.

Therefore, this change does not constitute an unreviewed safety question as defined by 10CFR50.59.

• Wf M

4a l

s I

4

- - . . . _ - . . . .