ML20212R601: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS | | document type = OPERATING LICENSES-APPLIATION TO AMEND-RENEW EXISTING, TEXT-LICENSE APPLICATIONS & PERMITS | ||
| page count = 9 | | page count = 9 | ||
| project = | | project = TAC:65078, TAC:65079 | ||
| stage = Request | | stage = Request | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
: 1) 2.40 1.60 2197 | : 1) 2.40 1.60 2197 | ||
: 2) 2.36 1.63 2150 | : 2) 2.36 1.63 2150 | ||
: 3) 2.32 1.66 2125 Analysis 1 is contained in the March 3, 1987 letter. Analysis 2 and 3-are contained in Exhibits E and F. | : 3) 2.32 1.66 2125 Analysis 1 is contained in the {{letter dated|date=March 3, 1987|text=March 3, 1987 letter}}. Analysis 2 and 3-are contained in Exhibits E and F. | ||
These three analyses conservatively define the shape of the locus of. | These three analyses conservatively define the shape of the locus of. | ||
! points in F /FAH q space of the peaking factors which produce 2200 F peak cladding temperature following a LOCA. Figure TS.3.10-8 has been drawn from the three sets of peaking factors listed above. Since three j analyses have been performed over a very small change in FAH, e.g. a 4% | ! points in F /FAH q space of the peaking factors which produce 2200 F peak cladding temperature following a LOCA. Figure TS.3.10-8 has been drawn from the three sets of peaking factors listed above. Since three j analyses have been performed over a very small change in FAH, e.g. a 4% | ||
Latest revision as of 02:19, 5 May 2021
| ML20212R601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1987 |
| From: | Musolf D NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212R565 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-65078, TAC-65079, NUDOCS 8704270271 | |
| Download: ML20212R601 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.._ d . UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATOP,Y COMMISSION NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY PRAIRIE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-282 50-306 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSE DPR-42 & DPR-60 LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST DATED APRIL 13, 1987 Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, requests authorization for changes to Appendix A of the Prairie Island Operating License as shown on the attachments labeled Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F. Exhibit A describes the proposed changes, describes the reasons for the changes, and contains a significant hazards evaluation. Exhibits B and C are copies of the Prairie Island Technical Specifications incorporating the proposed changes. Exhibits D, E and F contain supporting technical documentation. This letter contains no restricted or other defense information. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY By M => David Musolf Manager-NuclearSupportServ\ ices On this 13M day of hjls /987 before me a notary public in and for said County, personal]'y appeared David Musolf, Manager - Nuclear Support Services, and being first duly sworn acknowledged that he is authorized to execute this document on behalf of Northern States Power Company, that he knows the contents thereof, and that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief the statements made in it are true and that it is not interposed for delay. Orht 0_2 _ 2s l NOTARY PUBLIC = MINNESOTA ll HENNEPIN COUNTY : {l' My Commission Empires Dec. 26,1989 l
':^:::::.::^::^.::::..:::::::::::::.{'
4270271 870413 P ADOCK 05000282 PDR I
, , s .- . l EXHIBIT A Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant License Amendment Reauest Dated Aoril 13. 1987 Evaluation of Proposed Changes to the Technical Specifications Appendix A of Operating License DPR-42 and DPR-60 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Sections 50.59 and 50.90, the holders of Operating Licenses DPR-42 and DPR-60 hereby propose the following changes to Appendix A, Technical Specifications:
H/Fq Limit Changes Proposed Changes (TS-x; TS.2.1-2; TS.3.10-1, 2 and 11; Figure TS.3.10-8.) Rather than have one FqandFfH limit, two functions are proposed. The functions, F O(FAH) and FAH(F q ), are related and defined by the proposed Figure TS.3.IO-8. The rest of the proposed changes are related to this change. Add Figure TS.3.10-8 to the List of Figures. Change the FAH and Fq factors on page TS.2.1-2 from 1.60 and 2.30 to 1.70 and 2.50 respectively. Modify the Fq and FAH equations on pages TS.3.10-1 and 2. Add Figure TS.3.10-8. Reason For Chances This change will allow more operational flexibility. Fq typically peaks at the beginning of the cycle, generally decregses through the middle of the cycle, peaking again later in the cycle. F"AH will generally increase as Gadolinia burns out in mid-cycle. Therefore, E can be limiting at the beginning and end of cycle but FN can limit mi -cycle (see Figures 3 and 4). TheproposedderateforUnit1Cy11e12showninFigure1isduetoFq between 0 and 3 GUD/MTU and between 9 and 15 GWD/MTU. The derate between 3 and 9 GWD/MTU is due to FAH limitations. The proposed change will allow the limits to be varied so that additional Fq margin can be obtained by decreasing the F H limit or conversely, more FAH margin can be obtained at the expense of margin. The proposed changes will reduce the derate for Unit 1 Cycle 12 to that shown in Figure 2. A-1
' t Ab . .
- Safety Evaluation and Determination of Significant Hazards Considerations The proposed change to the Operating License has been. evaluated to determine whether-it constitutes a significant-hazards consideration as 4
required by 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.91 using the standards provided in Section 50.92. This analysis is provided below: {' l. The proposed amendment will not involve a significantlincrease in the nrobability or conseauences of an accident nreviously evaluated. The peaking factors are used in both'the Large Break Loss of Coolant L 4 Accident (LOCA) analysis and the Operational Transient analysis. Both-
. analyses have been reanalyzed to verify the acceptability of the, proposed peaking factors. The peaking factors are also inputs to the i
.Small Break LOCA analyses, however, the last Prairie Island small break analysis used more conservative peaking factors than that requested in this change (See Exhibit F of the letter dated January. 13, 1987, D M Musolf to Dir NRR).
-The Operational Transient analyses are summarized in Exhibit D (Safety Evaluation of Increased FQ and FAH, NSPNAD-8705) . The report contained L in Exhibit D was generated by Northern States Power Company personnel using methods approved by the NRC Staff in a Safety Evaluation Report dated July 14, 1986. These analyses assumed peaking factors (Fq of 2.50 and FAH of 1.7) larger than those proposed in this License Amendment Request. These are conservative for the peaking factors presented in Exhibits B and C.
The'LOCA analyses are summarized in Exhibit E and F. These reports were generated by Westinghouse Electric Corporation using the 1981 Model with modifications described in the NSP letter dated March 3,
, 1987. Three analyses have been done:
1 Fq F PCT (F ) AH i
- 1) 2.40 1.60 2197
- 2) 2.36 1.63 2150
- 3) 2.32 1.66 2125 Analysis 1 is contained in the March 3, 1987 letter. Analysis 2 and 3-are contained in Exhibits E and F.
These three analyses conservatively define the shape of the locus of. ! points in F /FAH q space of the peaking factors which produce 2200 F peak cladding temperature following a LOCA. Figure TS.3.10-8 has been drawn from the three sets of peaking factors listed above. Since three j analyses have been performed over a very small change in FAH, e.g. a 4% ! change, the relationship between Fq and FaH is defined well enough to-linearly interpolate between the tHree analyses. Therefore, this proposed change will allow operation below and to the left of the line A-2 t ____r.,__,._ .. . . , m.y f , ,.- -- ,_, ,. . _ , ,, , .,,._,_,_c . , , , _ , , ,
..___.,.,._,<___y ..,_...m.. , , ..,_ .-
- e- ls . .
dr:wn in Figura TS.3.10-8. The'use of linear interpolation is similar
.to the linear interpolation between NEPLHGR limits at different exposures allowed in BWR Technical Specifications.
t The LOCA analyses have been performed for a. core of 1/3 Exxon and 2/3 Westinghouse OEA fuel assemblies out to peak pin exposures of 42 GWD/MTU. This will bound the Westinghouse OFA fuel exposures. expected-in Unit 1 Cycle 12 and Unit 2 Cycle 12. The approval'of the new Upper Plenum Injection model, currently being reviewed by the NRC Staff, is expected prior to Cycle 13 of either unit. These analyses are conservative for Unit 2 Cycle 11, with 2/3 Exxon assemblies, since-the narrower OEA fuel requires more time to reflood, i.e. more Exxon assemblies will cause'the reflood rate to increase, and therefore lower peak cladding temperatures. j The LOCA analyses have been performed for Westinghouse OFA fuel. .The Exxon fuel will not be limiting, as shown by Figures 5 and 6. For the above mentioned reasons, this change will not involve a
- significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident j previously evaluated.
f 1
- 2. The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident oreviousiv analyzed.
t Since this is only a change in allowed peaking factors, no different type of accident is created. Applicable safety analyses have been reanalyzed, meeting all acceptance criteria. 1
- 3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in j the marRin of safety.
As shown in Exhibits D ,E and F these changes will not result in a significant reduction in the plant's margin of safety. - The Commission has provided guidance (March 6, 1986 Federal Register) concerning the application of the standards'in 10 CFR 50.92 for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples of amendments that will likely be found to involve no significant , hazards considerations. The changes to the Prairie Island Technical
- ' Specifications proposed in this amendment request are equivalent to NRC example (vi), because they involve changes which either may result in some 1
' increase-to the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all transient analysis acceptance criteria-and within the limits of 10 CFR Part 50.46 and Appendix K to Part 50. ~ Based on this guidance and the reasons discussed above, we have concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a significant haraids i consideration. r 5 A-3 J n ,,,ey--<- 3 - -,,..~4m,e-- m -.++ g - 3-m, +. ,,e n ,.m- .s.rw., , -. . . n. <,,,,mn-e.+ -e -,.,-m..N,--e--,
- . - . -- .e
l 1 n 102- - - - - - 4----- - - -- :---- =- ' l g w "y "y "y "y "y "y "y "y "y "" l
] 100~ "r y "Y 3 . .
o 98- -
-b-
~4- i-- i- - - % ^-- i ; - 4 -
4-
=
/i 4 -4 4 #
4 - y 96- - - -' -h-------- I$--h-*-
-i---=--h k . J4 3 I '
g
. . . .. g'
,4- . . .
..+.. .
- . 9 .... ..+. . .
.....:...+....
E ! . . : Legend 3 92- - t- -'- ->- . E x . ,- V Nominal n 90- - - -- 4- - -- - - = - - - - -- X Upper Bound - 3 , 88 .,.,,,.,,,.,.,.,.,. .,.....,,,. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exposure (GWD/MTU) Fig.1 : Predicted Max. Power Allowed for Unit 1 Cycle 12 With Existing Technical Specifications n ,02- . . . . . . . . . . . . . :. . .. . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . ; j 100- "" "7 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + q" " ' 3 i/ o 98-- Y- + 44 . : + - !- + + 4 4-
= : . .
l 4 - \ u gg- : .s.. -s. .a. e
. , - . - . . . . .~
I l g - o g4_ .2. .. .. . . . g . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . i l 92- - ' ' '
-i i- ' Legend -->-
E - x V Nominal
- g g0- . . . ~ . . . . ..--a... -;. .
g , X Upper Bound 88 , , , , , , , , 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Exposure (GWD/MTU) Fig. 2 : Predicted Max. Power Allowed for Unit 1 Cycle 12 l With Proposed Technical Specifications
i l r a. i I 1 I 108 . . l i i
. t . . > . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . p . . . p . . . s . . . s . . . ; . . p . . 6 . . - I. 6. l . . . ) . . i . . . ; . . . l . . 4 . . l- . i .
- I - + I . 5 . l
. . l . . . l . . . ) . . . l. . . . .
. 1
. 1 106 -
Le9end . 1
. . . l
.. i . . ; .. . ; . .. ; . . . ; . . .; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . i . . . ; . . . i . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . .
d En" ..;..
. i X Fn" :
104 . . . .. .. ..
. .i. .
- s. . .
102_ . . . .. . . .. .. . . ... . . . . .......,.,.s., . W. g . . . .; . . . .
. . ,s
. . y .
.3.. .g...)...p...p...,. ..p...;..;...)...;...g...}...p...;..6...). . ) . . . l . . . g . . 3 . . . ; . . ) . . 3. . . . . . . l . . . ) . l
. . . )
n O . ..
- -- : e .- .-- -- - - - --
zn. 100- . N . .
- s. . . .
p ..;.. , .;.. . ;, . . , . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . ; . . ', . . y .. ; . . . ; . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . ; . . , . .; .. . g . a gs- . . . . . . .
...n<. . . . . .,.
() . . ; . . . ; . ; . . . ; . . ; . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; .. a . V ' O QQ . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. II. . . .
..}...). .;...;...>...)...i. .;...)...;. .t...). . ; . . . ; . . . g . . . g . . . ; . . 3. . ) . 5. . . t . . . g . . . ) . . . ; . . g . .. ) . . . ; . . . g . . 3. .
g4 .. .. . .. . ..- . .. . . .. . . . . . . . ..
..). .;..;...;...;...;...)...;...)...;. .)...;...g...;...).
, .;. .;.. , ..;.. 1...;.. 3...;...)...;...p...;...).
92-- - - - - - - - -
. . i i
..). .
.;. .;...;...;...).
,..).
90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . > . .. . . . . . . .......>..............;..i......................;.....................,.....,.
88 . . . , , , , , , , . . . . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EXPOSURE (GWD/MTU) l FIGURE 3 : F o VS EXPOSURE FOR UNIT 1 CYCLE 12 l
r ). 108 . .
..g...)...;...;...p...)...)...;...)...). . ) . . . ) . . . ; . . . g . .. g . . . ; . . . ; . . t . . . ) . . . ) .
.;...)...)...;.....p...;...)...}. .
.p.
106- - Lgggnf
. . ; . . .; .. . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . ' ) . . . ; .
d f 4 u" i-104- - -- - - - ' X .F us" _ .
. ; . .. ; . . ; . , ,..;...;...;...;...;...;...,., i .. ; . 6 .;. 6 . . ; . . . s . . . ; . . , . . ; . . . ; . . ; . .. ; . . . ; . . . ; . . ; .
102- -- .
.)...;...l...p...;...;...)...p..).
. . ..; . . . p . .q l . . l. . . . } . . . ) . . . l . . . ; . . ) . . . ) . . . g . . ; . . g . . . l . . . ; . . i. . . . ) . . . ) . .}...).
y. s . . .o, , , ., . . . . .
. .'. . . .s . /.. .
v,. ,v. . . . #. . . o 100- :-
. s
'e.
@ l ,, M ' .
A -
- l . .
T"
. ; . . ; . .. ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . .j .
m .j...;...;...;...i..., . . ; . . . ; . . ; . . . i . . . ;. . . ; . . . i. . . .; . . . ; . . . ; . g . . . . .
- 98- - - - - - - - - - - --
-.J & -
g ..;...;...;...;...;..;...;...;...;...;. .,...;. .;. .;. ,..;...;..;...;. g[ . . .. . . . . . . .
<a . . :
gg Ij. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .......j......
..;...)...;. .)...;...)...;...;...;...). .;...}...;. .;...)...)...;. . ) . . . ; . . . ; . . . ; . . . g . . . . / .
3.. . ; .
..)...;...;
.)..
gf --. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .
..)...;..g...,...;...>...). ,..). .;..). , .;. .;...)...;...)..;...)...;...;...;...)...;. .p...;...p...;.
3 i l . . . I 92- - - - - t .
,..;...;..l..;..;...;..;..;..
, .l.. ,
s o _. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 88 , , , , , , , , , , , i i . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EXPOSURE (GWD/MTU) l l FIGURE 4 : F 3g VS EXPOSURE FOR UNIT 1 CYCLE 12
F .A . O 1.50 - 1.45- - -
-+-
+ - - - - - -
LOQOnd - V West. Fuel X ENC Fuel 1.40- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 6 ap - - 3 -
+
O -
+- - - -- "'--
7- -- :- -- n,, 1.35 h- Y - - G - - O - W u 1.30- - - -
+- -- -
-----+ +- - - :--- +--
a>
- 4 .
.b 1.25 -
.c
-+---
-+- +- -- --
--l 5 - ; -- -
E g . to m 1.20- -- -
+- - - -
- +- - --
< --j---+-.---
e - 3,.
~ 1,15- . . -. .=- . ..:..
.+...+.. . .
a_s a) ec . 1.10 - - - -- -
+---- - --
---+-- -
W.. . , . w .. . 1.05- .
. . 5. g . . . . . . . . . . .
. + . . . . +* . .
4'%g :, WW% +4kg ,.,.,.,,,. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Cycle Exposure (GWD/MTU) Fig. 5 Relative Assembly Average Power for Exxon and Westinghouse Fuels for Prairie Island Unit 1 Cycle 12
F A' . 1.50 . : . 1.45- -- I-- - -- - -- NOQOnb - -
^
- V West. Fuel X ENC Fuel 1.40- - - - - - -
u ~ 3 + 0 1.35- -
--+- - -
- +-- - - - - - -
t- - --- O. , : - c) . O C 7 7 7 i A
? 1.30 -
e
- L- - -- - --
-{- - --
s . b 3,25 X- . . . . . . . a' _ 4,
%4'%
o ' E .
% 4 -~~ - g ,-
G
$ 1.20 - -
4- - - L - -
-- yk- - - -
e - c3 1.15 - -
+- -
4- - - - . - - -- e - gr - 1.10 - -
+- - -- -
+- -- -
+- -
1.05- -
+- - -
t -- --
;- +.-f- -
1 . i . i . , i i . , , i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Cycle Exposure (GWD/MTU) Fig 6 Relative Assembly Averge Power for Exxon and Westinghouse Fuels for Prairie Island Unit 2 Cycle 11
. - - - - . . - - .- .- -- .- -. - --}}