W3P87-2049, Application for Amend to License NPF-38,changing Axial Shape Index to Implement Power Dependent Limits & Providing Administrative Changes to Shutdown Margin Requirements to Remove Mode 2 Applicability of Tech Spec 3.1.1.2.Fee Paid
| ML20237H230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1987 |
| From: | Dewease J LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237H232 | List: |
| References | |
| W3P87-2049, NUDOCS 8709030178 | |
| Download: ML20237H230 (8) | |
Text
_- _ _ -
4 r
LOUISIANA 317 BARONNE STREET P. O. BOX 60340 POWER & LIGHT /
(504) 595-2781 NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70160
$Pui$EfsY$
- j. G. DEWE ASE sEu on vocs mstosur.
August 26, 1987 W3P87-2049 A4.05 QA U.S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission ATTN: Decument Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555
SUBJECT:
Waterford SES Unit 3 Docket No. 50-382 Technical Specification Change Requests NPF-38-63, NPF-38-64, NPF-38-65, NPF-38-66, NPF-38-67 Gentlement Louisiana Power & Light Company hereby files an application for five amendments to the Waterford 3 Technical Specifications. The amendments involves 1.
A change to the Axial shape Index (ASI) to implement power dependent ASI limits:
2.
Adding a note to the ECCS Subsystems Tech Specs to ensure that two independent trains of ECCS subsystems are operable whenever the RCS temperature is greater than 500 F; 3.
Administrative changes to the Shutdown Margin requirements primarily to remove the Mode 2 Applicability of Tech Spec 3.1.1.2; 4.
Adding operability and surveillance requirements for newly installed fire suppression equipments and 5.
Adding the actual overcurrent protection devices currently installed in the polar cranes containment electrical penetration.
8709030170 870828 DR ADOCK 05000'g2
\\ \\
"AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER"
&c \\dfCFNCIL hlSD 'OO
)
1 l
Page 2 W3P87-2049.
August 28, 1987 l
1 The proposed changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question nor a significant hazards consideration.
Should you have any questions or require j
I additional information regarding the proposed changes, please contact R.J. Murillo at (504) 595-2831.
h'dCLAdb.
[e'niorVicePresident
(#uclear Operations JGD/DPS/pim
Enclosures:
NPF-38-63 NPF-38-64 NPF-38-65 NPF-38-66 NPF-38-67 Filing Fee, LP&L check 07-5505 - $150.00 cc E.L. Blake, W.M. Stevenson, J.A. Calvo, J.H. Wilson, R.D. Martin, NRC Resident Inspector's Office (W3)
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C01DfISSION In the matter of
)
)
Louisiana Power & Light Company
) Docket No. 50-382 Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station
)
AFFIDAVIT J.G. Dewcase, being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is Senior Vice President, Nuclear Operations of Louisiana Power & Light Company; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the attached Technical Specification Change Requests; that he is familiar with the content thereof; and that the matters set.forth herein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
s
/
$ s M CA A 0
/
J.G. Dewease
< Senior Vice President Nuclear Operations STATE OF LOUISIANA)
) as PARISH OF ORLEANS )
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public in and for the Parish and State above named this Pm 8 &
day of Aveosf 1987.
l n
><e-n ary Public U
My Commission expires d k $enkk 1
,%--.--,-----,--.---r,----
.f
- 1 S '
l l
. NPF-38-63 i
~ i 1
1 i
l 1
1 m
E DESCRIPTION AND' SAFETY ANALYSIS F
0F PROPOSED CHANGE NPF-38-63 The is a-request to revise Technical Specification 3/4.2.7, " Power Distri-bution Limits - Axial Shape Index".
Existing Specification See Attachment A.
Proposed Specification-l See Attachment B.
l Description l
i The proposed change would revise Technical Specification 3.2.7, Power i
Distribution Limits - Axial Shape Index (ASI). The reason for this change l
is to clarify the relationship between the axial shape monitoring limits i
described in the. Technical Specifications and'the. axial shape assumptions that were used in the Cycle 2 safety' analysis.
In addition, the proposed change will provide increased ASI operating space at lower core power levels.
Technical Specification 3.2.7 currently' states that the AS* shall be-main-l tained between -0.23 and +0.28 when the Core Operating Limits Supervisory
)
System (COLSS) is operable and between -0.17 and +0.22 when COLSS is out of service and the Core Protection Calculators (CPCs) are used for ASI moni-toring.
These limits were based on the non-LOCA safety analysis which assumed an ASI range of -0.30 to +0.30, the LOCA safety analysis which assumed an ASI range ~of -0.25 to +0.30, and estimated ASI monitoring uncer-tainties of 10.02 for COLSS and 10.08 for.the'CPCs.
~Although the current Tech Spec is based on the Cycle 2 safety analyses,.it does not reflect a reevaluation of the LOCA that was perf rmed at initial
{
core power levels below 70% nor the actual ASI monitoring uncertainty associated with COLSS.
(It should be noted, however, that the COLSS soft-ware was changed prior to the. Cycle 2 startup to ensure that the actual COLSS ASI monitoring uncertainty (10.026) was properly accounted for.) In order to restore a more direct. relationship between the ASI limits assumed
)
in the safety analyses and the ASI monitoring limits in the Tech Spec (and i
to provide additional ASI operating space at lower core power levels), LC0 3.2.7 is being revised to be power dependent and to account for the actual COLSS ASI monitoring uncertainty.
1 The proposed change would revise LC0 3.2.7a (COLSS operable) to impose ASI limits of -0.22 and +0.27 for core power levels equal to or greater than 70%
and ASI limits of -0.27 and +0.27 for core power levels less than 70%.
The proposed change would also revise LCO 3.2.7b (COLSS out of service) to im-pose ASI limits of -0.17 and +0.22 for core power levels equal to or greater than 70% and ASI limits of -0.22 and +0.22 for core power levels less than 70%.
Although this change is being proposed to clarify the relationship between Tech Spec 3.2.7 and the Cycle 2 safety analyses, it is anticipated that the proposed change will remain bounding for Cycle 3 as well.
NS41293 i
l
Safety Analysis The proposed change described above shall be deemed to involve a signific at hazards consideration if there is a positive finding in any of the following areas:
1.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated?.
Response
No.
The Cycle 2 non-LOCA safety analysis was performed assuming an ASI range of -0.30 to +0.30 while the Cycle 2 LOCA safety analysis was performed assuming an ASI range of -0.25 to +0.30.
In order to i
translate these safety analysis assumptions on ASI into an actual range of values that can be monitored by the plant operators,.the ASI range assumed in the safety analyses must be narrowed to account for uncertainties in the ASI monitoring instrumentation.
For Waterford 3 both the COLS$ and the CPCs can be used for ASI monitoring.
An-uncertainty analysis performed concurrent with~the Cycle 2 safety analyses determined that the COLSS ASI monitoring uncertainty was less than 10.03 and the CPC ASI monitoring uncertainty was less than 10.08.
Thus, in order to ensure that the Cycle 2 safety analyses remain bounding, the proposed change will require the COLSS indicated ASI to be maintained between -0.22 and +0.27 and, if COLSS is out of service, the CPC indicated ASI be maintained between -0.17 and +0.22.
The range of acceptable ASI values discussed above is based on the LOCA safety analysis since these events are analyzed over a more narrow ASI range than the non-LOCA events.
However, an evaluation of the LOCA events has determined that if the core power level is less than 70%, the beneficial effects of the lower initial core power level will compensate for the potentially more severe axial power shapes that could result from the wider ASI range assumed for the non-LOCA events; i.e., if the core power is less than 70% both the LOCA and non-LOCA events have been shown to have acceptable conse-quences over an ASI range of +0.30 to -0.30.
Thus, when core power is less than 70%, the COLSS indicated ASI must be maintained between
-0.27 and +0.27 and, if COLSS is out of service, the CPC indicated ASI must be maintained between -0.22 and +0.22.
These ASI limits plus maintaining the core power below 70% ensure that the Cycle 2 safety analysis will remain bounding.
Therefore, since the proposed change imposes ASI limits that are directly related to the Cycle 2 safety analyses and the results of safety analyses are acceptable, the proposed change will not result in a significant incraase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously t...luated.
q 2.
~Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed i
change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response
No.
NS41293 k.-
j
The spectrum of axial shapes that was considered during the Cycle 2 safety analysis envelopes the range of ASI values that is allowed by the proposed cnange.
There has been no physical change to plant systems, structures or components nor has there been any change in the manner in which the plant is operated.
The only change to plant procedures will be to reflect the new ASI limits in the routine daily logs recorded by the plant operators.
Thus, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?
Response
No.
The intent Tech Spec 3.2.7 is to ensure that the actual value of ASI is maintained within the range of values that was assumed in the Cycle 2 safety analysis.
The ASI is one of several parameters that must be within a specified range in order to ensure that the peak linear heat rate and minimum DNBR remain within their respective safety limits during an anticipated operational occurrence.
Since the range of values that is being proposed by this change has been used as a direct input to the Cycle 2 safety analysis and since the Cycle 2 safety analysis has shown acceptable results for all events, the proposed change will not result in a significant reduction in the margin of saf ety.
Safety and Significant Hazards Determination Based upon the above Safety Analysis, it is concluded that (1) the proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10CFR50.92; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change; and, (3) this action will not result in a condition which significantly alters the impact of the station on the environment as described in the NRC Final Environ-mental Statement.
1 i
j l
l NS41293
_____-._____-____,,-_,.--_..-_._--___m_-___,
, E
- 4 NPF-38-63 ATTACHMENT A l
l l
l l
NS41293