ML18011A347

Forwards Supplemental TS Re Cycle 6 Fuel Transition in Support of Application for Amend to License NPF-63,per NRC Request

ML18011A347
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/17/1994
From:	Robinson W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML18011A348	List: ML18011A347 ML18011A349
References
HNP-94-013, HNP-94-13, NUDOCS 9403040080
Download: ML18011A347 (6)

Text

ACCELERATED DI< UTION DEMONSTB TION SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR:9403040080 DOC.DATE: 94/02/17 NOTARIZED: YES DOCKET FACIL:50-400 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Carolina 05000400 AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ROBINSON,W.R. Carolina Power 6 Light Co.

RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)

SUBJECT:

Forwards supplemental TS re Cycle 6 fuel transition in support of application for amend to License NPF-63,per NRC request. D DISTRIBUTION CODE: A001D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL ( SIZE:

TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution NOTES:Application for permit renewal filed. 05000400 A

RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL D PD2-1 LA 1 1 PD2-1 PD 1 1 LE,N 2 2 D INTERNAL: ACRS 6 6 NRR/DE/EELB 1 1 NRR/DORS/OTSB 1 1 NRR/DRCH/HICB 1 1 NRR/DRPW 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SPLB 1 1 NRR/DSSA/SRXB 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1 1

-

P/H'DG 1 0 OGC/HDS1 1 0 REG FILE 01 1 1 EXTERNAL NRC PDR 1 1 NSIC 1 1 D

D D

NOTE TO ALL "RIDS" RECIPIENTS:

PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LIS1S FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED!

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 22 ENCL 20

Carolina Power & Light Company William R. Robinson PO Box 165 Vice President New Hill NC 27562 Harris Nuclear Plant FEB t 7 IS94 File: HO-940254 Serial: HNP 94-013 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTENTION: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-400/LICENSE NO. NPF-63 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT CYCLE 6 FUEL TRANSITION - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Gentlemen:

By letter dated July 16, 1993, Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) submitted a proposed revision to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (SHNPP). The proposed amendment incorporates references to Siemens Power Coiporation (SPC) methodologies that will support Cycle 6 operation at SHNPP. Additionally, on August 27, 1993, CP&L submitted plant-specific safety limits and setpoints related to the transition to fuel supplied by SPC.

Based on recent discussions with the NRC Staff, CP&L hereby provides the following additional information relative to the July 16, 1993 and August 27, 1993 submittals:

Responses to NRC questions concerning TS Table 2.2-1 in CP&L's August 27, 1993 submittal and a question concerning the meaning of the phrase "plant response" contained in CP&L's July 16, 1993 submittal are provided in Attachment 1 ~

2. Revised marked-up TS pages 6-24 and 6-24a, as well as new retyped TS pages 6-24 and 6-24b are attached to reflect NRC comments on the use of NRC-approved versions of SPC methodologies (Attachment 2). Specifically, these pages have been revised to incorporate the phrase "latest Revision and Supplements" in lieu of specific revision numbers for certain methodology references and to add a statement that specific revision numbers willbe contained in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). Revised Page Change Instructions are included in Attachment 3.

9'403040080 'st%0217

~-

PDR P ...

RDOCK 050O0400 PDR.

State Road 1134 NewHill NC Tel 919362-2502 Fax 919362.6950

Document Control Desk HNP-94-013 / Page 2 The 10 CFR 50.92 evaluations submitted as part of CP&L's July 16, 1993 and August 27, 1993 submittals are unaffected by this additional information.

Questions regarding this matter may be referred to Mr. R, W. Prunty at (919) 362-2030.

Very truly yours, W. R. Robinson LSR/lsr c: Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. N. B. Le Mr. J. B. Tedrow W. R. Robinson, having been first duly sworn, did depose and say that the information contained herein is true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge and belief; and the sources of his information are officers, employees, contractors, and agents of Carolina Power 8c Light Company.

Notary (Seal)

My commission expires: 7(Q,/P+

gggll ol tlfg~~

r

gOTAHy e,(p 004

". ~l/BLlG tlllI llllll g

Attachment 0 SERIAL: HNP-94-013 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NRC DOCKET NO. 50-400/LICENSE NO. NPF-63 REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT CYCLE 6 FUEL TRANSITION - SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION With respect to NRC questions on Tcchnical Specification Table 2.2 1 in Carolina Power & Light Company's August 27, 1993 submittal and the phrase "plant response" in the July 16, 1993 submittal:

Question 1: What is the methodology for the choice of + 12% for the value of q, - q, as the point at which the f,(b,l) function reduces the trip setpoint?

Response: The methodology for the setpoint calculations is the approved Siemens Power Corporation statistical setpoint methodology, EMF-92-081 (A), "Statistical Setpoint/Transient Methodology for Westinghouse Type Reactors." This is the reference "I" in the Core Operating Limits Report reference section (6.9.1.6) of the Technical Speciflcations.

The AFD control for Cycle 6 uses the approved PDC-3 methodology, ANF-88-054 (A), latest Revision, "PDC-3: Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation Power Distribution Control for Pressurized Water Reactors and Application of PDC-3 to H. B. Robinson Unit 2."

Question 2: Why was the + 12% chosen for the value of q, - q, as the point at which the f,(EI) reduces the trip setpoint instead of + 9% or + 10% or some other arbitrary value?

Response: The value of + 12% was chosen as the value that would be expected to bound the possible normal operation axial flux difference (AFD) for Cycle 6 and future cycles and could be supported by the statistical setpoint analysis.

PDC-3 AFD control does not use absolute AFD limits but rather the AFD limits are relative to the target AFD. Therefore, with AFD limits at - 10 and + 7 and an expected target at Beginning of Cycle 6 of + 2%, the predicted maximum allowed AFD is + 9%. However, future cycles may have a more positive target AFD than that of Cycle 6.

Question 3: What is the overall effect on operation caused by changing the value from + 6% to + 12%?

Response: The overall effect on operation is that the OTET trip setpoint is not reduced by the f,(EI) function by operation within limits established by the safety analysis. Ifthe value had remained at the + 6%, the OTET trip would be reduced unnecessarily whenever the AFD exceeded +

6%.

Question 4: CP&L's July 16, 1993 submittal states that plant response willbe supported by Siemens Power Corporation methodology. What is meant by "plant response"?

Response: Plant response refers to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) Chapter 15 plant transient calculations.

0 I