ML20100K576
| ML20100K576 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1984 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100K574 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8412110187 | |
| Download: ML20100K576 (3) | |
Text
-cc e
e.
9 ATTACHMEN' 2 Proposed Amendnient to DPR-30 BARRIER FUEL RAMP TEST END OF CYCLE 7 INCREASED LHGR Revised Page:
3.5/4.5-10 9445N hhk 0 N5 P
7
,j m c
d.
t' i
Quad Cities
+
)
~
i within the prescribed limit'within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the
' reactor shall:be brought to the cold shutdown condition within 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />. Surveillance and
. corresponding action shall continue until reactor j
operation is within the prescribed limits.
1 Maximum allowable LHGR for all 8X8 fuel types Jis 13.4 KW/ft.*
K. - Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR)
K.
Minimum Critical Power (M:PR)
During steady-state operation at rated The MCPR shall be determined daily during core flow, MCPR shall be greater than steaoy-state power operation above 25%'
or equal to:=
of rated thermal power.
1.34 for%ye2. 0.73 secs 1.39 forfave2 0.86 secs 0.385 7 ave + M ave 1.059 for 0.
4 0.86 secs where
= mean 20% scram insertion
'l ave time for all surveillance i
data from Specification
'4.3.C which has been gene-rated in the current cycle.
For core flows'other than rated, these nominal
-values of MCPR shall be increased by a factor-
~
of kr where kr is as shown in Figure 3.5.2.
If any time during operation it is determined by normal surveillance that the limiting value for MCPR is being exceeded, action shall be initiated within 15 minutes to restore operation to within the prescribed limits. If the steady-state MCPR is not returned to within the prescribed limits within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the reactor shall be brought to the cold shutdown condition within 36' hours. Surveillance and corresponding action shall continue until reactor operation is within the prescribed limits.
- For the purpose of the end of Cycle 7 Barrier Fuel Ramp Test, the steady-state LHGR for the Barrier Ramp Cell' fuel may exceed the maximum allowable LHGR identified in Technical' Specification 3.5.] by no more than 12 percent (15.0 KW/ft), effectiva from initiation of the test until the end of Cycle 7 shatdown.
Amendment No. 51, 69, 79, 80 3.5/4.5-10 6312N
r ATTACHMENT 3' Evaluation of Significant Hazards Consideration Description of Amendment Request This amendment would raise the LHGR' limit from 13.4 kw/ft to 15.0 kw/ft for the 16 barrier fuel assemblies located in the four barrier fuel test ramp cells.
Basis for Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification amendment and determined that it does not represent a significant hazards consideration.
Based on the criteria for defining a signficant hazards consideration established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), operation of Quad Cities Unit 1 in acordance with the proposed amendment will not:
1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because-adequate margin to the 1% plastic strain limit is maintained for all of the FSAR transients.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed technical specification waiver does not allow any new modes of operation beyond that normally performed at operating BWRs.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because a 4.8 kw/ft (or greater) margin to the 1% plastic strain limit exists for the worst FSAR transient.
Additionally, this request is of a type which was specifi-cally cited in the Federal Register (48FR14870) as an example of license amendaent not involving significant hazards and therefore not requiring opportunity for prior hearings.
That is:
vi A change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analysed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan.
In consideration of the above, Commonwealth Edison believes that NRC approval of this amendment can be made as provided for by 10 CFR 50.91(a)(4).
9445N