ML20138P038

Proposed Tech Spec,Adjusting Specified DNB Parameter Limits from Analytical Values to Operational (Indication) Values to Allow Direct Comparison Against Measured Values as Indicated on Station Instrumentation

ML20138P038
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20138P032	List: ML20138P030 ML20138P038
References
TAC-60425, TAC-60426, NUDOCS 8512240260
Download: ML20138P038 (9)

Text

o,.g

-e.m y w.*emwg"m'm

~

w"

~

~

g 3

,W7s

,t4.<

m l,

r ;if - _,

4 se n

y.-

m.

s

-t.

.s.--

u.-

5... <

g ~.

n w

}?'N'p 7

ye 9h.

~

c

.-a ~_

e

" o i

+

.c

~~

9;

~

i _;

rp. #

^

, j ij-c.

- u. > j.

m.

a s

' us.

1

.k

[ J '..'..gNi n--

t 1 -

,mn

.m -

7.,g,-+

1._

t. -

F

%y,.. -~..._ <

...; r..

a.+

m-en n

., W i:p 4

-~

a:.

Q'<,t s

$[.;Q...,, ;

~,-

~3 1

'.i e

.,a,,

t k 4-t

. m. -

w,

l-(.p,._

l';.

~..

-n_.-

i

.< +

T

.6 e

^l 2' ' ;: _;

-t

,1 0

i

,.$l

~

a.

?

'q 1

s f

1

-ATTACHMENT.1

$ Proposed McGuire Unit 1 and'2^ Technical Specification Changes k

_g a

G

' * ?,

e F-p

• i /i a..,---p,.;J

-'T i W._-

f y--e'

,,y4,,a,.3.,

A e.-... +*e

.,gC p

,a ym-c-

-'t' I

f s4.,g

.i. g u'

'4

,w.4 l{l M

.f.

'..r

~.

, m' y

-:t

?J <'

~

4

}

g

/

n.

J.-

i

,w m

I g

W-1 r -\\

• pN Q

smenamou, n

- pg g

ui

_r,,

, e e

+

c 4

r kt

,y~,

I E

'- =

3 9 /, 3

,e c.

y-g g-U. 3

't

.:'l,.,.

-4 4

Y h0'k.Y

+

.~... _

~

'_ ; 2

-POWER DISTRIBUTION LINITS 3/4.2.5 DNS PARAMETERS

. LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION y

3.2.5 3The following DNB related' parameters shall be maintained within the

. limits shown'on Table 3.2-1:

'a.

Reactor Coolant System T,yg,.and b.

Pressurizer Pressure.

?APPLICA8ILITY: =M00E'1.

N ACTION:

~ With any of the above parameters exceeding its limit, restore the parameter to within its limit within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> or reduce THERMAL POWER to less than 5%'of RATED THERMAL POWER within the next 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.

. SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS

^

nessunes av avsaw~s ne sueumroensu stra on ce,r.enn)er rug opennew cusuma suo

' 4.2.5 Each 'of the parameters of Table 3.2-1 shall be verified to be within V

their limits at.least once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.

1 f

McGUIRE UNITS 1 and 2 3/4 2-22 Amendment No.

(Unit 1)

l Amendment No.

(Unit 2) 7 7

1 w

.--..,-,,,--,_a,,,,n-

,,-,-a,,.,,,,n.w..,

,,-,,r,_,w,n-.

mmn-e,-*T'***'wa

p.

i.;

TABLE 3.2-1 DN8 PARAMETERS LIMITS

^

~

q

Four Loops Three Loops /

TER In Operation In Operation

-Reactor Coolant tem T,yg 5,593'F

(**)

' ~

Pressurizer Pressure

> 2230 psai*

(**)

t f

3i' l

5 i

i

" Limit not 4pp icable during either a THERMAL POWER rar.p in exceNof 5% of RATED Tl L: POWER per minute or a THERMAL POWER step in excess of-10% of l

\\ ** RATE ERMAL POWER.

'N

/

\\

/

se values left blank pending'NRC approval'of three loop operation.

. -m x

)26PcML wirn IrvssgQ, j

t McGUIRE - UNITS 1 and 2 3/4 2-23 Amendment No.

(Unit 1) f Amendment No.

(Unit 2)-

7

h.

• 7;*

7

[4..~

v w, :i ' 4; ~;

~

y > sly.,,

_-.ga

h f-5

_.-- a,

'v

.3 m,;

,..r=

,p

]

y p/

mv-

=

C*

N-8 N

'/

{.g-

$ _ ggf N -;

+

fi; i

6;v',

_I' y^;

%j.,; )..L

'.^'g., i ".

\\

..N s

e a

).

~ ;..* -'

m.,,

n.,

s y,

~

b

7

bg-b

• y:-

w;

--m 3,3 x;* '

. :p y

e

~ :

A

.# OPERABLE t.

J PARAMETERm

' INDICATION.

CHANNELS'

. LIMITS *:

~

u a

I ndicatedIReactorICoolant! System T

-. me ter -

'4~

<590.5'FD I

s w~... N avg ~

Emeter.

3.

1590.2*F'.

n;;, -

c >

591.0*F c-

~

. computer;

.'4

~ N,, -

computer-3-

<590.8*. F

,,n 3 +- : Indicated.PressuriseriPressure**.i

-meter.'

i4.

22226.5 psig, ng meter-3-

.t2229.8 psig

-y

@~

computer.;

14

> 2221._7 psig.

s

}

T, 3;

computer ~

13 L>2224.2:psig I

s.

d j, s

]

p g.w.o.

' f,[*Limitsjpplicable:duringifourloopoperation.

• • Limits-not' applicable during either a THERMAL ~ POWER. ramp in excess,of15% of =

t

-RATED THERMAL. POWER per minute or-a-THERMAL POWER step.in excess of 10%

RATED THERMAL : POWER.. ' ' -

95'

-tm

-. -- - f,

Y

_;a'-

f 8

t Y

" ' g a, I

f

~'

C g..

r.

_f g

g.

a g

p, q ;;,,u..,.

s' efg s p J_

4'

.W -

4 y

-r A

Y

<t s

e I

- /:

El s

g

+

i kJ

?

p Y'

L r

3 r-J g

?. f., '

,,h-6.~ J s

t

,- k _.

4

. (.

i --

t k

}

o. ( L 1 _

, 'h e'

(

3 L_e

.a POWER DISTRIBUTION LIMITS 8ASES-3/4.2.4 QUADRANT POWER TILT-RATIO The QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO limit assures that the radial power distri-bution satisfies the' design values used in the power capability analysis.

Radial power distribution measurements are made during STARTUP testing and-periodically during power operation.

The 2-hour time allowance for operation with a tilt condition greater

~

than 1.02 but less'than 1.09 is provided to allow identification and correc-tion of a dropped or misalignhd rod.

In'the event such action does not cor-rect the, tilt, the margin for uncertainty on F.is. reinstated by reducing q

the power by 35 from RATED THERMAL POWER for each percent of tilt in excess of 1.0.

For. purposes of monitoring QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO when one excore detector is inoperable the moveable incore detectors are used to confirm that the normalized symmetric power distribution is consistent with the QUADRANT POWER TILT RATIO.

The incore detector monitoring is done with a full incore flux map or two sets of four symmetric thimbles. ~The two sets of four symmetric

/

thimbles is a unique set of eight detector locations.

These locations are

..y

-C-8,-E-5, E-11, H-3, H-13,.L-5, L-11, N-8..

.h ;

H

-3/4.2.5 DN8 PARAMETERS

The limits on the DN8-related parameters assure that each of the para-meters are maintained within the normal steady-state envelope of operation assumed in the transient and accident analyses.

The limits are consistent I

with the Linitial FSAR assumptions and have been analytically demonstrated

' adequate to maintain a design limit DNBR throughout each analyzed transient.

- 7,.

~

'The 12-hour periodic surveillance of these parameters through instrument readout is sufficient to ensure that the parameters are restored within their limits following load changes and other expected transient operation. luman~

f' run*+e~rano~ etc nwear n~ce,rs,ane; An Au~-iso go, o~ tve Lomn,nonota ou us.s s.n.o.

v.

4 m woam, rwawa, u., rue >~,o aa,,,,w.,as,,,,,,,,, mu an,,,,,_,,, n.,,n,

$$! oSWu'V5all* """"?'**"* **" '** '**"* "*" '"'""'*"*"

P McGUIRE - UNITS 1 and 2 8 3/4 2-5 Amendment No. ?/(Unit 1) i Amendment No.

1(Unit 2)

_-.--,,--..---,-~.-r--

$1 _ fi 7

', f i 7_

M

< +.x v y, v

~,w, ya 4.*

, CNS 4.

g og x

y t

NR

~Q l L 4 :'

~

~

..y.

i[

N'

- [,[c;

~

. Xm.

w.

-m' r

we >

Of.

,, ((.-

i,

Attachment-2

, ~ y: -

d

,,,W_

Q, e,

.,M yu Yef:. ', _

l 3

gg ;

eJUSTIFICATIONJAND SAFETY ANALYSIS

~

p? ' e-mc.

. \\

i

.r L p 1

' & ",,(TheTsafety(analN is~assumptionslassoclated with the-DNB parameters Reactor! Coolant-g

~

I fSystem;Tavs andyPressurizar Pressure are 592.6*F and;2220 psia respective 1ye(FSAR m

'W-

'<,Section'15.0)b ;The existing: Technical Specificat' ion 3.2.5 specifying these: limits

~

f Q

[does?notfaccount;for, indication:instrumentationmeasurementuncertainties'andJtherefore d y m, ; 1 ; requires that7th's measuredivalues,as given?by. station; indication instrumentation-E Kf 2 foribese/parame.ters be Jadjusted for instrumentation uncertainties priorito :the c

S' 9'e

-comparison,withithal limits of Technical: Specification: Table 3.2-1.1 The proposed'

^

,~ Trevisioniadjusts;these411mits.cojinclude,theLinstrumentation' uncertainties.,.

~

,4' f allowingidirecti comparison against-measured. valuer,as indicated on 'ststion instru-gr 7 imentation; to ? ensure > operation lwithin the steady-state' envelope assumed in - the -

~

W, rsafety(analysis.i(Notet) Pressurizer Pressure limitssare now being specifiedTin-

% lpsig (vshpsia))since station ' indication instrumentation is in.psig)., Appropriate s

~ " limits"are defined for both analogLaeter and digital-computeriindications and

~

g

^

[assumingi he measured valuesLof thefparameters Tavg.and: Pressurizer Pressure are R

t 4

-M

define'd as the' average of either four or'three independent operable channels.

M, hfTh[wrev'ised Technica1'Specifihation is' based uponLthe DNBIlimited safety analysis s

4 iinitialiconditionlas'sumptions (including safety analysis allowadces),Jand plant;

'l

+

s specific' estimates;forLthelindication instrumentation uncertainties..For most s

k faccidents1whichYare-DNBlimitedfnominal'valuesof'initia1'conditionsareassumed.=

i e

1 Thefallowances on t'emperature and pressureLare determined'on'a statistical < basis ~

gg

, fand are included in the limit'DNBR; as described in WCAP-8330,;Westinghodse Antici-1 3

~

i x; ' i EpatedTransients'without(TripAnalysis.: August 1974(Thisprocedureisknownas'cl-7 OtheL" Improved Thermal Design' Procedure"). _ For DNB'~1imited accidents for which ' the

' N.

t Improved Thermal: Design, Procedure.is.not employed, the-initial conditions are

~

, ;obtained by adding lthe maximum steady state.' errors to rated values; iThe following.

1. J n ; conservative'steadyzstate errors were assumed in' the-analysis for. average Reactori

~

~

@E

[ Coolant:SystemTemperatureandPressurizerPressure:'4.0*F' allowance-forcontroller p

m deadband and measurement. error;2 130'ps'i allowance for steady state fluctuations and 4

~

H' (measurementnerrori(Ref. FSAR!Section 15.0.3.2).

Note: The term " meas'urement error"-

jf

insiused=above.is addressing control' system errors.(i?e. contro17 system operating 6

> tolerances) and'does'not involve station indication' instrumentation measurement i

(uncertainties;( Measurement 1 uncertainties.were" calculated for indicated values of' y

N-(,[Tavg7and: Pressurizer Pressure consistent with the methodologies and-allowances.

r.

. used in the; determination:;f protection my stem setpoints.. The uncertainty.

g

-allowances for the indicatior and : readability result,.in' the difference in requirements

~

~~f61 sdependent;upon whether the parameter.value.is read from an analog meter or digital 4 " V Tcomputer output. lThe calculation; determined'the accuracy associated-with's single

1. 7A

/ instrument: channel'and e'stimates.the parameter uncertainty l based upon the number g of' channels av'eraged to determine.the best estimate!value of Tavg or Pressurizer

-Pressurei "

a j

, y' r s

t 0

4

,4 g

L

~j f

~

[.*

3 3,l>

,,-%4 2h'^

1 y

,(

4 l

e -

i f

m aqa 7

.,_____.,_..-__~m_,_.,_,

{

%M.*

._t4 j_.,._

(

-d.

Q," Y #

3 g

j A

~

$5plagny%z m* Magn $, d M*

Lw

-b-:

• ~

4 Lgyym=-

,%n wh..

n

f~

+

muha MM a-nun Wi

-.trmiC ' %

W%. ;, Q t

V s

[

?a s m

L [ L f,1aN

{y u

- q L j]ftzeJThefcsiculation>offthe PressurizerjPressure requirements ~is provided as follow

-~

/

V aQ-l L M::

i

~

l 1 d p # " [NominaliVAlue/..

~

- 2250lps'a.(2235.3 psig)-

i.

%"/

,eSafety' Analysis' Allowance: '-l30Lpsi-UQ Channel lAesuracyl(Analog),.-;42.4lps1L w

gj[ Mh (Channel. Accuracyl(Computer) :

32~.8 psi:

~

e s, q;ff: -

c ~ -. <

s 1-a<

~

'l,

7 d, STo Jdetermineyparameterluncertainty for the average of : four independent:

M O 4 8 ? ~ ichannels',jdivide single channel accuracy bp_2.

For the: average of.

4 [-,

gJ (Thefrequirements are:;

1 (thsee independentUchannels,; divide: the single channel.. accuracyL by M.q.

~

s"

' g_g ~

E

^

- e,.

W

{

- jaethf,(_4 cliAnne1[;b. ' 11'imit"> (2235.3 - 30 :+-(42.4/2))$

%w y;q

.g

. flimit i 2226.5"psig ~

- Jb a' '

m t

L r

g1 Las'erf3channelsb limit i> (2235.'3 -. 30 + (42.4//T))'

ppy, w;

$ 11mit - > F 2229.8'psig

-%y

..g.

7A^

Jcomputer.14} channels;';11mit;> (2235.3 - 30 + (32.8/2))

~

{limitL>_ 2221.7 psig 1

M w n %m ",

y y[ U [ [ [ ^ Leon hter N3fch$nnels; [11mit" [ (2235'.21 T 30 t '(32.8//I))

,m

?

MW*

L11miti > ' 2224. 2.psig -

1

[%49 y w y-;,

s.

.v.

1 l

w /The? requirements'for.the~T Parameterlindications are determined infthe._same A 4 - }< ~ e. menne_r based uponsa nominal.v!1ue,of1588.6*F,' a safety Lanalysis _ allow av i p$M"jandisingletchannel; uncertainties'ofJ4.2*Fiand3.'2*Ffor'meterandcomputer ~ l f

?indicationsfrespectivelyb 4

~

P dd. 3

% %c ?

-u

,It should beino_tedjthattthe existing Technical Specification ~cpecifies a Pressurizert s'

-s

^ Pressure limit /of; 2230 :psiaf rather: than the 2220 psia (nominal. 2250_ psia -130 psi.

g~, _

SAs safety;analysisfallowance)'usedI E

to calculate the new: indication 11mit's. RThis:

Tv 34 c:12230ipsia value(isincorrect-(possibly ~due;to typographicalVerror) and fis_ overly M b "" ! conservative;with respect (tof.FSARTsafety/ analysis. assumptions.:.

• Consequently, lbasing Lthelnew indication climitsi onlthe lower-2220 psiaL safety ' analysis ~ assumption :

.J ~4_

tvalue has no': adverse safety; implications. LIn addition, the. existing Technical h 1

M ', danalysis! assumption =of 592;6*F rounded-off).; - Since g oft 593*F L(FSAR safe

_.(S ecification: specifies a' Reactor Coolant--System Tav -

F

P

!Q N.

the new indication values are j$

calcula.ted'using the' lower.(and:therefore more conservative)J592.6*F value~andI D

M

arejnot rounded =off ;they are slightly?more; restrictive than the. current 593*F-u ivalue?

~

3.

. n,

$N

,l I

W QM

[Thi surveillance: r'equirement is appropriately revised to -reflect the various - typesc y

, f f j of Jindication's'(meter or computer) 'and to require averaging oflthe operable channels ?

f(with:a' minimum of 3'operableichannels)-of-indication to verify the limits.; The-7 1((formatfof Table'3.2-l'is altered?similarly to provide 1the' limits for the various1 Indicatifon/(Operable Channels l combinations (Note that' the provisions for including 7

7 possible future 3-:looploperation values have been deleted, with the table applying :

A onipatoT4J1oopLoperation)? xThe-Technical ~ Specification's bases'is also revised g["f. o A

<qaccordingly E-'

s

.e

,y 1

7;;

_ y

[

I

-.M 2 -lj n

. g g

r' 1

J

? t.

s 4k [

,I '.- & '

+7.

^V l M,,3

• n-e d'

M!L,

/ y,.

....Ty g-

1. t

y e,

4

i. -

g g-Q.,,

- As* additional justification:of the amendments' acceptability,: the current 'draf t version ~of NUREG-0452,4 Standard; Technical Specifications for Westinghouse-

Pressurized Water Reactors, revision _5 incorporates a similar." indication" concept

~

for;the1DNB~ parameters Technical Specification..'Also, an identical change-is currently'under review by the NRC as:part_off.the proposed Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and-2 Technical' Specifications'(Ref. Mr. H. B. Tucker's (DPC) August-

7.-1985Llettertto Mr.'H. R.;Denton1(NRC/0NRR)).-

hF,

'Inisummary,i he proposed Technical Specification' revisions basically only. adjust-

. t the-specifie'd DNB_ parameter limits from~ analytical values _to operational

(indication) values and do not constitute a change to the limits themselves

'l(except as noted above)'

Consequently,: Duke Power Company concludes that the

--proposedLamendments allowing' direct comparison between station instrumentation land Technical specifications are more operational oriented and have no adverse Jaafety implications;.

a h

-l4 er-a.

.-'+,c, s

t 4

-g.-

L

m.

g

' Attachment 3 ANALYSIS OF'SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION S

.As: required by 10 CFR;50.91, this analysis is provided concerning whether the proposed amendments involve significant hazards considerations, as defined by

-10 CFR'50.92.

Standards for determination that a proposed amendment involves 1

no~significant. hazards considerations are.if operation of the facility in accordance with'the proposed amendment would not:

1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of-an: accident previously evaluated; s or 2) create:the possibility of: a new or-different kind of accident from any

~

accident previously evaluated; or 3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of' safety..

.The' proposed-amendments basically only adjust the specified DNB parameter limits

'from analytical values to operational (indication) values and do not constitute

=a change to the limits'themselves (except as noted below). Adjusting limits from' analytical to indication values has no effect on the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated as the actual limits are unaffected.

In addition,ino new or different kind of accident from any. accident previously

~

evaluated could be created since such an adjustment can have no effect o.n causal

mechanisms..Further, adjusting limits from analytical to indication values-does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety since the actual limits are unaffected.-

Basing.the new Pressurizer Pressure indication limits on the lower 2220 psia value (vs. the 2230 psia of the current Technical Specification) does not involve

. a-significant hazards consideration. The commission has provided exampics of amendments likely to involve no significant' hazards consideration (48 FR 14870).

-- One example of this' type is (vi), "A change which either may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or may. reduce in some way a safety margin, but where results of the change are clearly. within a11' acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component

=

specified'in'=the standard review plan:

for example, a change resulting from the application of a small refinement of a.previously used calculational model or design method". Because the conservative assumptions of the accident analysss are unchanged by this difference, the example cited above can be applied to this aspect of the amendments.

The new Reactor Coolant. System T indication limits were. calculated using the av lower (and'thereforemoreconserva$1ve)valueof592.6*F-(vs.theroundedoff

'593*F value currently in the Technical' Specification).. and were not rounded off. : Example (ii) of commission provided (48 FR 14870) examples of amendments likely to involve no significant hazards consideration states:

"A change that

, constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications: For example, a more stringent surveil-lance requirement".

Since the new indication limits are consequently slightly more restrictive than the current 593'F value, the above cited example can be applied to this aspect of the amendments.

Based upon the preceding analyses, Duke Power Company concludes that the proposed amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

r.