ML20212M602

Application to Amend License NPF-43,changing Tech Specs 3/4.2.2 Re APRM Setpoints & 3/4.3.6 Re Control Rod Block Instrumentation.Fee Paid

ML20212M602
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	03/09/1987
From:	Agosti F DETROIT EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20212M603	List: ML20212M602 ML20212M614
References
VP-NO-87-0005, VP-NO-87-5, NUDOCS 8703120092
Download: ML20212M602 (10)

Text

.

- ~ . -. . .. . .

'-- h ._G,..

Frank E Agoel -'

4 Le ( wates : ~

Fermi 2 rt, M c i an 48

. Nuclear '

(313) 586-41M operations March 9,11987. e VP-NO- 87-0005 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn Document Control- Desk Washington, D. C. 20555

Reference:

Fermi 2 NRC Docket-No. 50-341 NRC L'icense No. NPF-43

Subject:

Proposed Technical . Specification

-(L'icense Amendment) Change - APRM Setpoints (3/4.2.2) and - Control Rod Block Instrumentation - f 3/4.3.6)

Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Detroit Edison Company hereby proposes to amend Operating L'icense NPF-43 for- the Fermi 2 plant by incorporating the enclosed change into.

the Plant-Technical Specification 3/4.2.2,'APRM Setpoints and Technical Specification 3/4.3.6, Control l Rod - Block Instrumentation Setpoints.

Detroit -Edison has evaluated the proposed technical specification change against the criteria of 10CFR50.59

-and 10CFR50.92 and determined that no unreviewed safety question or significant hazards consideration is involved..

~

.The Fermi 2 Onsite Review Organization has approved and the Nuclear Safety Review Group has reviewed this proposed technical specification change and concurs with the enclosed determinations.

Pursuant to 10CFR170.12(c),_ enclosed with this amendment request is a check for one hundred fifty dollars

($150.00).

L In:accordance with 10CFR50.91, Detroit Edison has provided a copy of this letter to the State of Michigan.

\

8703120092 870309 1 hCP DR ADOCK 05000 gee!el ujheuc- (dotD

USNRC'

-March 9,'1987 VP-NO-87-0005 Page 2 If you have-any questions, please contact Mr. Steven Frost at.(313) 586-4210.

Since rely,

[

Enclosure cc:. Mr. A. B. Davis Mr. E. G. Greenman Mr. W. G. Rogers.

Mr. J. J. Stefano Supervisor, Advanced Planning and Review Section, Michigan Public Service Commission

^

(

1 I

l l

l

r-USNRC March 9, 1987 VP-NO-87-0005

. Page 3 I, FRANK E. AGOSTI, do'hereby affirm that the foregoing statements are based on facts and circumstances which are true and accurate to the best' of my knowledge and belief.

WL FRANK E. AGOSTI Vice President Nuclear Operations On this day of ,-1987, before me personally appeared Frank E. Agosti, being first duly -sworn and says that he ' executed the foregoing as his free act and deed.

N Notary.Public

. MARCIA BUCK -

Notary Public. Washtenaw County, MI My Commission Expires Dec.28,1981 hW

p. M o._

4 , 4 e

ENCLOSURE 4

s

Enclosure:

to VP-NO-87-0005.

Page 1 BACEGROUW/ DISCUSSION i

A.'3/4.2.2'APRM SETPOINTS The existing 3/4.2.2 APRM Setpoint Action statement

reads " . . .within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> or reduce . . ."

The proposed change will read "...within 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />.or-r educe . . . "

The proposed change extends the action time limit  :

, from two (:2) hours to six (6) hours before setdown action is -required.. Large local power densities '

l relative t'o core average power normally occur _during startup as control rods are withdrawn to a target pattern. These target patterns are designed. to achieve a reasonable power distribution at full power i with equilibrium xenon. Prior to obtaining. these conditionsi'however, a skewed power distribution may occur due to non-equilibrium xenon _ or from the - fact that the rods have not been. pulled Hto their target -

positions. The additional action time -limit would allow the normal startup progression to continue t ithdrawing rods until-the target pattern is achieved

. and would allow suf ficient time for additional xenon to buildup. This will result in a normal-progression of rod movements during startup and will tend to flatten any peaking and bring local power densities within limits. Because the causative factor of 4

skewed power distribution is almost always xenon, utilizing rod movements 1to reduce the peaking factor is counter-productive' since it precludes establishing

the target rod pattern and essentially eliminates the i possibility of optimizing the power shape at higher power levels due to preconditioning.

j Add itionally, the proposed change does not eliminate the flow-biased rod block or flow-biased APRM scram setpoints or the setdown adjustments. The trip setting adjustments ensure that no combination of the Maximum Fraction of Limiting Power Density' (MFLPD) and Fraction of Rated Thermal Power (FRTP) would result in a Linear Heat Generating Ratio (LHGR) transient peaking factor beyond the one (1) percent plastic strain limit. Operationally the setdown adjustment enforces an optimal upper bound on the

core total peaking factor which in turn ensures conformance to LHGR limits at full power rod j

patterns. The only credit for the flow-biased APRM thermal power scram or rod block in the Final Safety I

-s Enclosure =to VP-NO-87-0005 Page 2'-

Analysis Report (FSAR) is_in the loss of. feedwater

-heating transient analysis. The margin of safety,.

however, is not significantly reduced because the maximum. xenon depletion that would - bound -the Ltransient event occurs during the first two hours af ter a rod movement. Extending the time-limit from two' hours to six hours allows time for _ additional ~

xenon to buildup.and minimize its ef fect upon a tr an sient .

Thus, approval of this Technical Specification change-to -increase ~the action time -limit -to six -(6) hours will ef fectively reduce ' the peaking . factor concern.

This change will allow optimum plant operation while preserving , additional safety margin above and beyond that required for anticipated transients initiated from analyzed operating . conditions.

B. 3/4.3.6 CONTROL' ROD BLOCK INSTRUMENTATION

'The ex'isting Control Rod Block Instrumentation Setpoint Table 3.3.6-2 Item 1.a currently has an-

• (asterisk) .in the trip setpoint and allowable value column. The proposed change will delete the

• (asterisk) for Item 1.a in both columns. The

• (asterisk) states that, "The rod block function is 1

varied as a function of recirculation loop drive flow (W). The trip setting of this function must be maintained in accordance with Specification 3.2.2."

The use of the *(asterisk) is a typographical error

~

and does'not apply to Item 1.a. . Detroit Edison has reviewed other plants' technical specifications and the GE_ Standard Technical Specifications which support this change.

Additionally, Footnote

• is being clarified by inserting the word "APRM." This clarification is consistent with the intent and reflects recently issued licenses.

4 SIGNIFICANT HAEARDS CONSIDERATION In accordance with 10CFR50.92, Detroit Edison has made a determination that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. To make this determination, Detroit Edison must establish that operation in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: 1) involve a significant increase in the probability or i- consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or 2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident

J' ,

l Enclosure to VP-NO-87-0005 Page 3

, l from any accident' previously evaluated, or, 3) involve a

.significant reduction in a margin of safety.-

A. 3/4.2.2 APRM Setooints

1. . The. proposed change to increase the action time limit does not involve 'a.significant increase in 3

the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the change does not involve a physical modification to the plant, la change. in. the limiting conditions for operation or a change in . operating practices. The target rod patterns are designed to achieve a , reasonable power distribution at full . power with . equilibrium .

xenon. By . allowing additional xenon to build in and . continuing to withdraw rods until the target.

pattern is achieved, the normal startup progression would tend to flatten the power-distribution.

Thus, there is no significant increase in the probability or - consequence of an accident i previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change to increase the action time limit does not create the possibility of .a new or dif ferent kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the change does not involve a physical' modification to the plant, a change in the limit!.ng conditions for operation or a change in operar.ing practices. The change will not provide an opportunity for the plant to enter a condition not previously evaluated.

Thus, the change does not create the possibility I of a new or different kind of accident from. any.

accident previously evaluated.

3. The proposed change to increase the action time limit does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the change does not eliminate the flow-biased rod block or flow-biased APRM scram. The trip setting adjustments ensure that no combination of MFLPD and FRTP would result in a LHGR transient peaking factor beyond the one (1) percent plastic strain limit. Additionally, the only credit for the flow-biased APRM thermal power scram or rod block is in the loss of feedwater heating transient analysis. The margin of safety, however, is not L

l I

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

m . . _ _ _ - _ . _ , __ _ __ . ._

)

9 Enclosure to ~ ,

VP-NO-87-0005' Page 4

, x k

1 - -

'significantly reduced ,because th6 maximum xenon -

.dehletion that would bound . the transient event occurs during -the first Ltwo . hours af ter a rod

-movement. >

Thus,_the change does not involve a'significant .g

. reduction in a margin of safety. f ,

- B'. 3/4.3.6 CONTROL ROD BLOCK ItiSTRUMENTATION

. The' proposed change is .3 typographical . error and a clarification that are purely adrinistrativo.

s These items are like that of Item (i) examples of amendments that are considered net .likely to involve Significant Hazardr Considerations (14870 FR Vol 48 No. 67).- This change'does not involve 4

a physical change to the.. plant, , change ' a limiting condition of operation 'or bhange any operating -

practice.- The *(asterisk) does not apply to Item ,

< l.a and does not change ~ any. aafety analysis or design basis of Fermi 2.,

This change will not reduce any margin of-safety under which Fermi 2 was licensed.

ENVIROtWHENTAL IMPACT I Detroit Edison has -reviewed the propored Technical Specification change against the criteria of 10CFR50.22 for  ;

environmental considerations. As shown above, the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration, nor increase the types and amounts of~ effluents that may be released offsite, ,nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures. ^ Based on the foregoing, Detroit Edison concludes that the proposed Technical Specification change meets the criteria given in 10CFR51.22(c) (9) for a categorical exclusion from 'che requirement for an Environmental Impact Statspent.

CONCLUSION Based on the evaluations above: ().) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the publictwill not be endangered by operation in the ~ proposed manier, 'hnd ~(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the l Commission's regulations and proposed amendments will not be E inimical to the common defense and security or to 'c ho health and safety of the public.

s 9

I

- -- ,4 -

y '.:

.. .L

}s /-

-Enclosure to

,. . VP- NO- 87-0005

)I' Page 5 pf y.

~

The increase in the allowable corrective action time from two

' (2) hours-to six (6) hours have been- made for Brown's Ferry 1

' ' 't Unit li:(Amendment 76 dated September -15,1981) , Unit 2 e (Amendment 77. dated August 17, 1984) , ' and Limerick Unit 1.

'J -

The typographical error-is like4 that of Item -(i) examples-of amendments that are considered not likely to involve Significant Hazards Considerations (14870 FR Vol 48 No. 67).

f V

4 p.

f

_4 8 +

e-

't' s

I I *4 J

4

- . - - - - e , - - - - - - - .--. , , .g-,gr-o- m-.,y- - - _ . - - - - - - ,r-,-,,..r--,,.....-.--,,--m-...----- - - ,-- - - - -

A

~t. .

Proposed Page Changes

/

__ - _ _