ML20235Y502
| ML20235Y502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 10/13/1987 |
| From: | Silady J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 3686K, NUDOCS 8710200386 | |
| Download: ML20235Y502 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
- ' /..
Commenw:alth Edison C
One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois C'[
Address Reply to: Post Office Sox 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 - 0767 i-
- i,' ' ;;C b
,~
October 13, 1987 4 oj $b y$ Og 20 Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director
. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Quad Cities Station Unit 1 Supplemental Information Proposed Technical Specification Amendment - Cycle 10 Reload NRC Docket No. 50-254
Dear Mr. Murley:
Please find attached supplemental information on the Quad Cities Station Proposed Technical Specificati.on Amendment for Unit 1 Cycle 10 Reload dated September 18, 1987. T%se items were discussed with Mr.
Thierry Ross of your office in a 4eleconference on October 7, 1987.
Please contact this office should further information be required.
Very truly yours, h
J. A. Silady Nuclear Licensing Administrator 1m Attachment cc: Region III Inspector - Quad Cities T. Ross - NRR M. C. Parker - IDNS 8710200386 071013 3686K g
.\\,
P'
' 'f.
,y 3
\\
ATTACHWNT
.t 5
4 fy g
g
~ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO OUAD CITIES STATION
- UNIT 1 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT -
LUNIT 1 CYCLE 10 RELOAD (DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 1987)
E l.'LReference'5.on page 3.5/4.5-15 of the. Technical' Specifications-(letter 4
'7 R.H. Buchholz (GE)-to P.S. Check (NRC), "ODYN Adjustment Methods for.
- Determination of Operating Limits," dated: January 19, 1981) has been deleted as a-result of the change from General. Electric's GENESIS to GEMINI methods. GE'has indicated that since the method for. determining 1
-ODYN Option A~ values has. changed with. GEMINI this reference'is no. longer 1
applicable. This comment should-be included on page 18'of our submittal-of September 18, 1987 under Summary of Proposed Technical Specification Changes Quad Citles Unit'1 Cycle: 10;.
t
- 2..Technica1'. Specification 3.5.D.2.has been revised to allow seven day operation with two to fiveLof the fivel ADS relief valves inoperat,le.
.This' approach takes! credit for HPCI operability so'that-ADS is not required during theLlimited period of operation.. Technical Specification 4.5.D.4 requires a demonstration'of HPCI operability on discovering that two or more-relief valves are inoperable.' This. assures that HPCI will be operable during the allowable seven days should HPCI be required.
1 The consequences of'a LOCA with HPCI operable and ADS inoperable are less severe than the limiting LOCA event. Section 5 of NEDC-31345 (Attachment 5 of our September 18, 1987 submittal) discusses the 1
~
determination of.the;1imiting event.- various break sizes (Section 5.11) and various failures (Table 4-2) were considered.
Section 6 concludes
.that the limiting case is the DBA recirculation. suction break with
'I battery failure.- Since the' limit $ng case bounds any other assumed 1
breaks or failures,.the DBA with battery failure will bound the small break with ADS failure of concern here.
Pressure response:to transients is addressed in NEDC-31449 (Attachment.6 of our September 18, 1987 submittal)..As discussed in Section B.3.1.1.,
- reduced relief capacity does not affect the change in critical power ratio because the peak neutron flux occurs before the relief valves begin to open. Section B.3.1.2 explains that the relief valves are not credited for the ASME overpressure analysis. Therefore, ADS operability does not affect the results of the limiting overpressurization analysis.
E The above discussion summarizes reasons that LOCA and transient responses are acceptable without ADS.
Technical Specification 3.5.D.2 as revised will allow operation with ADS inoperable for the limited time of seven days, as long as HPCI is operable.
1 1
1
.. 3.
In Section 4.5.D.4 of the Technical Specifications, the requirement to demonstrate HPCI operability has been changed, deleting the phrase "and weekly thereafter". Since operation with two or more relief valves out of service is only allowed for seven days (provided HPCI is operable),
the deleted phrase is redundant and not required.
4.'
In our transmittal letter of the proposed Technical Specifications for
.Q1C10 dated September 18, 1987, the issue dates of Attachments 4 and 5 were reversed. Attachment 4, NEDE-31345P, was issued in June 1987 and, NEDE-31449 was issued in July 1987.
5.
The following comparison of.the current operating restrictions in single loop operation (SLO) to the proposed Technical Specifications should be added to the Summary of the Proposed Technical Specification changes:
The operating restrictions in SLO are being deleted from the license and are being placed into the body of the Technical Specifications
]
with the following changes. These changes have been previously 4
approved for Quad Cities Unit 2 by the NRC SER supporting Amendment No. 95 to License No. DPR-30, transmitted by letter dated January 16, j
1987, J.A. Zwolinski (NRC) to D.L. Farrar (CECO), " Cycle 9 Reload and Single Loop Operation," except for the deletion of the MAPLHGR' reduction factor.
I (a) The license restriction that steady-state thermal power not exceed 50 percent of rated in slo has been deleted consistent
)
with subsequent Staff conclusions with respect to SLO stability i
margins for lower power density units. This is discussed further in the Unit 2 SER referenced above.
(b) The MCPR safety limiting and operating limit adder has been changed from 0.03 to 0.01.
As discussed in Section H.4 of our September'18, 1987 submittal, GE'has shown that increased core monitoring uncertainties during SLO results in an increase of 0.01 in MCPR.
(c) The restriction requiring a MAPLHGR reduction of 0.7 in SLO has been deleted. This MApLHGR reduction is no longer needed since SLO was analyzed with SAFER /GESTR-LOCA as discussed in Section C of our September 18, 1987 submittal.
(d) The restriction that the ApRM scram and rod block and RBM setpoints be reduced by 3.5 percent has been incorporated into the Technical Specifications, except that the RBM setpoint will be reduced by 4.0 percent.
The 4.0 percent reduction is due to the 1erger slope in the RBM setpoint equation. This is discussed in Section H.1 of our September 18, 1987 submittal.
g
~
.y' i
o 2
t It-should also be noted that.the original.value of 3.5% was analytically determined by General Electric. Subsequent:
measurements during SLO at another CBCo BWR~3:(Dresden Unit 3) in:1985 confirmed that the shift in the drive flow to core flow-relationship in SLO requires an adjustment of approximately 3.5%
to both'the APRM and RBM flow-biased setpoints.
The data
. indicated a 5.5% aw which equates to setpoint adjustments of 3.2%'and 3.6% for the APRM and RBM, respectively. These values are also well within the proposed Technical Specification-adjustment factors of 3.5% and 4.0% for the respective APRM and RBM setpoints.
1 (e) The requirements to monitor APRM flux noise and core plate di P-noise have been deleted since it has been' demonstrated that the noise experienced in SLO does not represent a less stable node of operation. This is discussed in Section H.S of our
' September 18, 1987 submittal.
a
?
I 1
i 1
3686K I