ML20092G938
| ML20092G938 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 06/29/1995 |
| From: | Kelley R, Wollman S BOSTON EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19311B798 | List: |
| References | |
| S&SA-088, S&SA-088-R00, S&SA-88, S&SA-88-R, NUDOCS 9509200154 | |
| Download: ML20092G938 (25) | |
Text
. -
CALCULATION COVER SHEET PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION I
Sh 1 of /A CALC. NO,54-s A e msitev. __c rite NO. SR E R-Tves Subjectl.r To. - De 4 r [t r- Te t k NSR O ---
Soo e X .1. C _ . I Discip ne 1sion nager 1 E k h l b ei w /d // Ir w Preliminary Calc. O Appro j FU1 wit.W&s_)$bw
- Date: /4/99/9r **'**
p Due Date Y. ft.*4LG Y
. ., final Catc. tS(
Independent Revi _ Nr /S[ - N Statement Attached Page(s) ByhL N Hrcuts m4 # te Ch' ' ' #' H + N EILL W te Agreed p p
.- m .a /
p- g A '
"[VU g l
This design analysis O DOES,%DOES NOT require revision to affected design documents.
Affected Design Documents:__
A Safety Evaluation O IS,%IS NOT Required. See attached preliminary evaluation checklist.
This design analysis O DOES%DOES NOT affect the piping analysis index (PAI). If the PAlis affected, initiate a revision to Calculation M561 Minor revisions made on pages of this calculation. See next revision.
l Reptaces Calc. No.
Voided By Calc. No. O Or Attached Memo i
Exhibit 3.05-B Rev.19 l
l l
i i
9509200154 950912 PDR P ADDCK 05000293 PDR
P 95a [p F> x 5mIm O m ms O gmV h MO;n 2m9m m N _
i I"~ p cm h -
pe f g ct - _
. ~ 3 l 9 I >' - -
- > ' ,s+ s
- 1 c1 t,r3-r _
a' l ' r n'#l '
f>
ah c t e zf hy4 ,
)
.O 9 s. C
~
5 , op " , , > -
n U >r o " i 9- , A_ + t >+p L r, lu .* i-
"a1 r ? ,g f ,e .' ~ l
- , gc3 . p ~
' I
'( f s ,
p.! i . e . D- y. hEg s .-
g h e"i V .o) *' ' g- .
1 4 ';y; )
-5 f *'f r ,. n e s' p c l' e6' , e; C 4f p nwcf . . < c; t5 k' S f E>
2p ,efh -,
- s. { aI{ r i
? l ( -
> kf F upos f' ,
93r
+
t : je b t ir ,j [ f' _ h,1 1I; ?U _
a l
g r'f f _(> ~- H'p<I f.[
4cf _
r o3 h e 9ff P<;i@t. a$ 1f't e<+I _
' P [, uf J f' p s s 7- te 5 p[#(p. s ['
rc th 5 (kaj + .
fp -
ol pfop
l, Apia .
3 nA e W ho qa
o.In. [ P" - pcf E y, >oLf
,C
' ! 'l o< ' k ,' _
,t ,
PU J , + ;. s , p f g< e p ' .
!s
..{s: :* _
,gy,_y.3-,h.es. . '
cat.c. # q +1 A OY 8 Je4 a .4BY6.Em5-***~*'4" + " ' ' ' ' '36 PREPARED REV. O M CHECKED BY g'[ \
DATE _A /k /9 7 / SON SHEET 1 CF- /(
l 1
- n TW s cs m - 4, - & c- T,&~<d 2KC e - -- - n z 1.c.L uer :
bo ta LL bepud c.soa S.m e, C
\3 . L J- -f 7s c p = o- s i c.c c- - r x e o c_
A *-- :L 2 -t ed V 2.oi6 sue. k O R C r C, C 3.E7h dieb# *L l
l w i
- -a A. .- ( Ac_ w w 'c ~ !-
i A c_ts J f a c-4 M * * ' b A' O kb L A ( D( t'( A g (
,, =. : 'L 1 to c~C.' cal e. r r cA ( ;
s o d. Ac V ( J ^Ok D'A N A k f
% ( A - C Ag C
{ c. -
' - w k4 e b Nyb O %( egh c w sc_c A . h cw %m 1
I V Ah A% b CW DW A V (.A_ A o e 0 7k d <-
\
~ M (: G cM e ( cmL Le cy e _ , +w y E. e:, Ack e ./ _' Atk b + -u
%4.
&t M
~,D L ek w - ea % ~ 2:~ n nb a .
l l
1 NtQ 1001 . I b L Co FORM 3930 f4Ev. @v1 I
OEM PREPARED BY eta -
CALC.O 4 + A A hQ R!E 2/w j
Rev. o DATE(
/ / EDISON SHEET OF /h uA b t om CU !
Tk c--:, ^ a t % v b t' V 4 ca :; w y de N wk
- , ~
YJL M& &w \ * . A @\
a wQ z'
~
ko' u <* ta eh4 dv s
~ #4 g a NA "o h y
4 ~- a - -< d l & i s
%>.c & w ucre a4~ cn Ln..s > J g. , L a C.
s .
w k % -4 oA A* (
t
? ?
p $
8'" h Pk -) @ 'M, J
t
. e e-
.e n- <& c.
- y. ~
- u. . .
c i wa a ,
w< w m A hk m m .. _ _ . m 4, m A , ~ v. 2~~ s u t b s- n-s i J 91 - rro.
t A*, . h M OW g#M P I DA W #
4 Mk Df
-a c e # * 'e d S
3ht t
- t o k, i m
- 1 . 1 . C., . '2 o%
I m+ [1
- s. . z . c _ 4 % cN 2
~w f-c 2.2 C- 1 A o-.h L %+ ,&& C 1.,.
Y~s C4.* h c.Wt AM n AN i v e L
' c -r A 6 cJ. As T.-M
's 7 4 4 _s r-u1j as h h 6.__ .s.
s u t t .s. s 2. - s t .
NED . Soc 1 ti E C,c FORM 3930 HE V. H1
CALC.o._.S + 1 A OER g PREPARED BY C "'"" "
REV.
DATE44 e,Ar MEDISON SHEET I OF [ [,
. 4
'* a ^. O Ekww hg'g 4 =
C- d% gmA cutes . t-gi
^
~6 Q' *q _;7o- -
e s
%et t a c c 4 4g l 7
M w b\k
- g,{ g g.
(/ DC,
/
1 I
i Nt.D toot B E Co F OHM .1930 HE V 6 91
Boston Edison Company Supplier Design Document Review Form PHPS Unit 1 SUDDS/RF # 9 2_. - r i Records Management Information Pages of attachments G QkNon-Q Activity Sc.%_ 7,* a_ Tm < S Soe.c_istdh Keywords: Sc.r %
Tew Contractor f . m ol El. e M e e_-. - SUDDS/RFft:L+51 Document Type: Design Bases /Cri eria/ Work Scope 0 ,
Doc # s t H :n-or typ ,
Sys Descriotion Equip Spec / ESR #
Matl Req C , Ana y_ sis Rpt/ Calc O, PDC #
Dwg d , Diagram O . Test' Plan / P0/ Req #
Proc O , Test Rpt D . Work Instr / 0 neuum Proc O,Other gg Document E LH : 9'2 -02 1 /
WAV S e 4009 Issue Date.:fr/a 2_ Draft: Yes O No eview: Conceptual % -" -w ~ "-
jj
'/ DetailO Cognizant Engr /GL (BECo) L ,_ a s u / Cros M \ N-
~a-CognizantEngr(s),ContractoNt: L L4 e oJ. u NUctiAR DISTRIBUTE Conforms to FSAR Reqmts: Yes 1 No__ Comment M w__ ,
Hn- nad Conforms to Procurement Recmts: YesX No_ Comment Na hCM Conforms to Other Applicable Doc / Proc Ks/A #
- Yes No Comment Detailec Review Oniv CALCULATION SHEET CAPffAL AUTHORIZAlloN NO.
Review and Evaluation Bases ~ ., , /
PREFARED ty Iais h /14 47 r 1 poniusNary nn , ,4_e; r REV_DAir CHECKED END hATF%lN/N N ey -
DAM i Results of Evaluation (Reason Mdnghs,d1Y '
REvCDAir p Comments (Suggested /Recuired Changes) ,
NED File Action: Release , Release w/ Comments Incorporated , Resubmit w/ Comments Incor. [
Rejets Letter = Date Part 21 Evaluation Rec'd: Yes No
/* , , . e _ E c A ed2LS/
/Coc 1:a t'g ~ f arfd Contr1 outing Engineer Date
/5/ A:r "
[M fdJ /5/ Date G#ouc Leacer '
Date Contricuting Engineer GL Exnibit 3.01-; Rev. 13
W GE Nuclear Energy r
h;5 .y
.~eie.~.ra
. :w
- g-.::= .- s., ,.,:
February 5, 1992 ELH:92-023 cc: J. P. Aboltin P. T. Antonopoulos P. J. Bukunt J. W. Gosnell A. D. Himle G. G. Jones J. D. Kerr S. J. Peters D. C. Serell E. G. Thacker G. A. Watford File: 1.3 Mr. J. H. Plascik, Manager Nuclear Fuel Procurement Administration Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree Hill Park Braintree, Massachusetts 02184
SUBJECT:
Technical Specification Scram Time Requirements
REFERENCE:
Memo, G. A. Watford to E. L. Heinlein, "PNPS Technical Specification Scram Time Requirements," dated 2/3/92
Dear John,
Attached for your information and use is the referenced memo regarding tech spec scram time requirements.
Please there are do not hesitate any questions regarding to contact the attached our San memo. Jose offices if Sincerely, 1 / *
) W -r=
E. L. Heinlein Fuel Project Manager Pilgrim M/C 174, (408) 925-6158 ELH:rg LALCULAil0N SHEET CA'dAt Attachment AUTHORIZAfitti N8.
g ggg,,7 PREPAREDBM DAT A9 ib REV_DAir - . CHECKID BY nAT
%INALI M A O E PPvD ~
sy DAq #C j l
REV10AirAI R h
,,m 7 n tL l
l
February 3, 1992 cc: J.S. Charnley ,
E.G. Thacker To: D.C. Sere 11 E.L. Heinlein DRF A12-00038-2 From: G.A. Watford '
Subject:
PNPS Technical Specification Scram Time Requirements
Reference:
- 1. Letter, R.V. Fairbank (BEco) to E.L. Heinlein (GE), same subject, 11/21/91.
- 2. Letter, R.V. Fairbank (BECo) to E.L. Heinlein (GE), same subject, 12/18/91.
- 3. Letter, G.A. Watford to E.L. Heinlein, same subject, 1/22/92.
This letter summarizes the information provided in Reference 3 and also provides additional information concerning the GEMINI scram times. The responses are also provided in the same format as the questions of References 1 and 2.
5(
eg (seconds) t y g 44 DO 0.504 W-2 - 1 34 00 1.249 E E 24 00 2.013 ' Y, E 2) 04 00 3.575 Average scram insertion time requirements fur the threE ffst t j
)
po trol rods in each group of four control rods in all twai@-tso strays TS
.3.3.c.2) from deenergization of the
- 44. scram pilot @"tve $so$endi$ 'to '
dropout of Notches 04, 24, 34, and '
" 3ar %s 3 out of 4 9 ON Notch Scram Time 5 m 47 Position (seconds) 5 gy[
44 DO 34 00 0.534 1.324 E
y l J -a"r d EE 24 DO 04 DO 2.134 3.790 o O k' '
y = 0.937 seconds '
a = 0.021 seconds 9
Page 2 E.L. Heinlein February 3, 1992
- 4) Correction factors required to account for measurement biases and uncertainties when demonstrating compliance with the scram insertion times requested in Items 1 and 2 above.
The limits specified in the responses to Items 1, 2, and 3, explicitly account for the uncertainties in the location of the position indication probes and for the uncertainty in the control rod position when pickup or dropout of the reed switch occurs. Any other measurement uncertainties and biases ' introduced by the BECo surveillance procedures and hardware configuration used in the measurements are specific to Pilgrim and are not included in the specified limits (e.g., determination of time zero, accuracy of measurement devices, etc.).
h'l,
^
verified by: '
.A. atford E.Y. bo, LSE Systems Integration Engineering Control Rod Drive System M/C 740, Tel. 5-6136 Reactor Design Engineering M/C 771, Tel. 5-6783
\ q b
at s kh k
faJs s
a i N ,f ,I dm E
$5*d e-
!! ! ! !Lx l f
' s E N nJ a s \ r }.
b*e h#
4
. Boston Edison Company Supplier Design Document Review Form PNPS Unit 1 SUDDS/RF # 9 .3, -17Q Records Management Informa tion
-Pages of attachments 2._
Q Non-a O Activity hk S pe_ S me ~ ~I t' e' Keywords: .
Contractor (5 e m d E k d .'e-- . SUDDS/RFr95+ \ '"f c Document Type: Design Bases / Criteria / Work Scope D, Doc # ELH 7 'b - G E twp ,
Sys Descriotion C . Equip Spec / ESR #
Matl _Rqq O , Analysis Rpt/ Calc C, PDC #
Dwg LJ, Diagram O, Test Plan / P0/ Req r Proc O , Test Rpt O , Work. Instr / Other Proc % Other L *. n + v-Document ELM : et 1 - 1'3, 2 1ssue Date9/ M' M 3 Draft: YesONMReview: Conceptual % -
DetailO Cognizant Engr /GL (BECo)E.R. + fro _o=_ _co/ J. L . f-s M .
Cognizant Engr (s), Contractor E_. d (4 e_A (<_t % * '
NUCdAR DISTRIBUTION Conforms to FSAR Reqmts: Yes 7 No__ Comment __
O% Ju L<
Conforms to Procurement Reqmts: Yes d o _ Comment ( ,h t l ><.
A/db Ib Conforms to Other opplicable Doc / Proc M /A :Yes No Comment 5e, Ndad b 'f}
XW*
Detailed Review Oniv SD l I
Review and Evaluation Bases ll f.- ,_
g
.R % T \d\
\\ SEP 2 8pdgp a > N\
Results of Evaluation (_ Reason for Changes, if any) O e$e :._k Consnents (Suggested / Required Changes)
E hl h 5h C .,... m y ,n.sls.
NED F- lejg Action: Release Reject
, Release w/ Comments Incorporated 0, Resubmit domme,nts Letter # Date kc$ O.
Part 21 Evaluation Req'd5 Yes atQ g an ?/ // 4.s Q Co3 Date Contributing Engineer g gie E
/S/ %cAzan fEngr ~ 9/w/wS/ v/A.
Gt2up Leaoer 'Dat'e - Contributing Engineer GL Date Exhibit 3.01-A Rev. Il
ATTACHMENT TO SUDDS93-170 The values reported here differ from the values reported in SUDDS 92-51 because, here, GE has removed the conservative assumption that the reed switch is at the minimum tolerance. Since this assumption is still more valid for the core-average scram times, the difference between the scram times reported here and the 2x2 Technical Specification scram times may be applied to the core-average Technical Specification scram times to yield the appropriate allowable values for the core-average scram times. These values are:
Notch Position Core-Averace Time (Seconds)
Dropout 44 0.508 Dropout 34 1.252 Dropout 24 23 Dropout 04
.583 Tkm vle m ameJe .
/Leo _aK g' t t,o Gh9/9i '{- \s i
- - h, e as NN in a,;as
!! EE e5 f "a u t-i B Oxn 5:
4&
b z d 5 i s
3 i sl Ed i 0 $s
W !
1 GE Nuclezr Energy Erm L Hemym :.e w i g-. ;-g, e< <' .e ~': e:* 'hja;r -
- ver ;c:-: e::. ...:,- r,_,ew e 3, ,::,_: 95 ;;
-: ::!-i it
.:: 3:: :.-
September 20, 1993 cc: J. P. Aboltin ELH:93-138 )
P. T. Antonopoulos t P. J. Bukunt J. W. Gosnell A. D. Himle J. D. Kerr S. J. Peters E. G. Thacker File: 1.3 Mr. J. H. Piascik, Manager Nuclear Fuel Procurement Administration Boston Edison Company 25 Braintree Hill Park Braintree, Massachusetts 02184
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
- 1) Letter, E. L. Heinlein to J. H. Piascik,
" Technical Specification Scram Time Requirements", February 5, 1993
- 2) Letter, E. L. Heinlein to J. H. Piascik,
" Time to Notch 44 Dropout Pilgrim",
August 29, 1993
Dear John,
c, d a.
- 5
- (e z Attached for your information and use is additional tion regarding time to notch 34, 24 and 04 dropout for Pi l requested by Dr. Gosnell of BECo.
, _ y a 2 3 Si cerely, j I d
- I N E c E. L. Heinlein E E d
- E E e= E N SeniorFuelProject%=ngej Pilgrim E(g qW M/C 174, (408) 925-6158 t; O (r ELH:mg *<
Attachment E E *E h *E l c 5 5 E hbb a
~.)
se a. .
l 1
i l
i l
1 Fuel Engineering General Electric Nuclear Energy I San Jose, California 175 Curtner, San Jose, CA 95125 i
RNE93-260 September 3, 1993 TO: E.L. Heinlein FROM: S.J. Peters
~
SUBJECT:
Time to NOTCH 34, 24, and 04 DROPOUT for Pilgrim
REFERENCE:
Letter, E.L. Heinlein to J.H. Paiscik, " Technical Specification Scram Time Requirements", February 5, 1993.
The referenced letter contains scram times to assure technical specification compliance for the fastest three rods in a clumped 2X2 control rod array at Pilgrim. At BECo request, the purpose of this letter is to update the time requirement for 10%, 30%, 50% and 90% insertion if it is determined by measuring from the NOTCH 44 DROPOUT, NOTCH 34 DROPOUT, NOTCH 24 DROPOUT and NOTCH 04 DROPOUT, respectively. The values are shown in the table below and they supersede the values reported in the referenced letter.
NOTCH 44 DROPOUT 0.538 seconds NOTCH 34 DROPOUT 1.327 seconds NOTCH 24 DROPOUT 2.137 seconds NOTCH 04 DROPOUT 3.793 seconds These values are based on removing the conservative assumption that the control reed switch is at the minimum tolerance, reasonable fo .avoraging multiple control rod drives. All other effects discussed ingtr e- rlfurenced letter remain conservatively included, u ~g Y Z If you have any questions please call.
%[ s l VI ELI Verified by:
S .J./ Peters ' J.F. Casi14&s
/
Reidad Nuclear Engineering 2 Reload Nucha inseridg 1 M/C 156, Ext. 51124 M/C 171, E 4 56910 ng WE $c A 'a cc. P.J. Savoia E
" h h
E.G. Thacker II '
i DRF M' J2042 F O
5 z a 5 +4 b5 S
5 5*fl E aQ e
$ ? l ejk 0
M cALQ.OIEs A 3e g ;,, e PREPARED BY
' " ' " ' " ' g(
REV. O DATE_ v a A r siVEDISON SHEET- / OF /b l
i l
CJ e AJ , e n z '
^s .r. u ca - C 4 :. u L 'e #
i L- N t 7 owd vol m , it ,
(n % c_L. ~ c.e>1 s p c i # c t %k, o s
.2. 2. , C . 2. a e. ( ;
$ c_ e. . S_ c_ c o m Okb 7 '% Q, --e o u Ts b ( tom D c .; 'b e r s t_A. b b s g 2_ - T l SubDE d-17b dt 44 bo O.514 sec O . 5' L 2 :w Osb6d 5 3.4 d o 1 32.4 ssA l.117 sa t o,ce3 s
- 2. d 10 2 . 1 1 4 s e t. 2_l37 s e c. O e, o 3 s.
O D'D .3 . 'T 9 D L e C- 1 .~7 O 1 L v C.. O C:, 635 !
A L 6, 1 ~ :: ^ c4 -Avr di 4% Ns sua# 1 J m o, a (- 7-cko 'e ed 1 e bt3 4 ,' m 1 1 , C" , ', g
.5 v i t. S. R 4 -5 I y Mi h asv wO E u. c> - N e o.- uikgd O s. c_ u s u v d 'N t I mg 4-. %t h <_ d J coC cc E ;
/,. ~ k uh. J % n:n w-
%%am.
l NED 1001 e L.co FORM 3930 REY 691
_ _..__---- -,= wu y un- une 5 M
nWW CALC.#_s + 2 A MBQ$7DN CHECKED BY _-
REV. O DATE< .4/2eA t
EDISON SHEET / OF b l
Sc_cu m hw h~ ' b (A l M e4h Ge o, -
Ste-9 0 3. % . .sa n D1 h -s) A+ Tu 44 30 csd1 s O .o bd I o . S o 8, a
" d. D O i :L <4 9 .s C . 0 0 3. 5 (. 2._ E ') s -
)
A4 3Q 2. o t 3 s C . 0C 1 s 2. O\b s 04 to 2.57E 5 C.co3s 3, T7% 5 T)ic m 'm Nzs-y-a-
% A(
w p . 3.;g i B E Co FORM 3W30 RE v 691
i i
'neu mtut _L g jg Calculation - Independent Verification Statement Record ~
Calculation # $ M k Revision # C has been independently verified by the following method (s), as noted below:
Mark each item yes, no or not applicable (N/A) and initial each item checked by you.
Design Review including verification that:
Design inputs were correctly selected and included in the calculation.
Assumptions are adequately described and are reasonable.
Input or assumptions requiring confirmation are identified, and if any exist, the calculation has been identified as " Preliminary" and a " Finalization Due Date" has been specified, o
Design requirements from applicable codes, standards and regulatory documents are identified and reflected in the design.
o Applicable construction and operating experience was considered in the design.
o The calculation number has been properly obtained and entered.
An appropriate design method or computer code was used.
A mathematical check has been performed.
The output is reasonable compared to the input.
AlternateCalculationl-l including verification of asterisked items noted above. The alternate calculation ( pages) is attached.
Qualification Testing l_l for design feature including verification of asterisked items noted above and the following:
The test was performed in accordance with written test procedures.
Most adverse design conditions were used in the test.
o Scaling laws were established and verified and error analyses were performed, if applicable.
o Test acceptance criteria were clearly related to the design calculation.
o Test results (documented in ) were reviewed by the calculation Preparer or other cognizant engineer.
Independent Reviewer Comments; & A/ #Ne'e477au 4A ~TV4 dd* c o e 4 ec770v RL ~7u e " FWS T
- R op S T4 Tve " AC/rxACV #005 /S c wecx vmyuc .
t ut~ Ac7"uAC MM TV (Od- u O A- A 6 \ u]D OL O Of MtwT& ~rUAU "TIIA Y C/t fD s tty) J V 7 y d d M e u u rica . s Independent Rev' er fb
~
Date
/
Preparer concurrence with /S/ % 6[.2.y k findings and comment resolution Cognizaitt Engine (r (Prepar#r o/(pt
/
Note: Exhibit 3.06-B (Sheet 3 of 3) may to used for additional comments by IR as a part of the Independent Verification for calculations.
Exhibit 3.06-C Rev. 7
1 EXHIBIT 4 Sheet I of 2 RType A9.02 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CHECKLIST I. IDENTIFICATION: Document Number Sf-SA O 28 Revision Q Description Suo- N .,- !e Tee 1 St u e
- 2. 3. C 1
- 2. CLASSIFICATION:
O Yes O No a. Does the proposed change involve Q listed equipment?
O Yes 2 No b. For a new procedure, Temporary Procedure, or major revision; does the Procedure contain procedural steps or requirements in the FSAR7 If yes, identify FSAR sections.
O Yes % No c. Is this a new procedure or Temporary Procedure that is Fire Protection Program related or a major revision that makes an existing procedure Fire Protection Program related?
- 3. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION:
O Yes O No a. Would this modify plant characteristics or procedural steps described in the FSAR? If yes, identify section:
O Yes 3 No b. Does this affect the design of systems, structures, or components described in the FSAR?
O Yes R No c. Does this affect the function of systems, structures, or components described in FSAR?
O Yes S No d. Does this affect the method of performing the function of systems, structures, or components described in FSAR?
O Yes R No s. Does this indirectly affect the capability of safety related systems, structures, or components described in the FSAR to perform their functions?
O Yes QNo f. Does this create a new test not described in the FSAR that could affect plant safety? ,
NOP83E5 Rev. 7 Page 29 of 36
EXHIBIT 4 Sheet 2 of 2 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CHECKLIST (Continued)
O Yes @ No g. Would this change assumptions used in the accident analyses described in FSAR Chapter 147 If yes, identify I sections: !
O Yes S No h. Does this change affect the ability of a system required to achieve and maintain safe shutdown in the event of a fire?
O Yes MNo 1. Does this change affect a requirement of, or major commitment to, 10CFR50 Appendix R?
O Yes R No J. Does this change affect a requirement of IE Circular 80-18 (for Radioactive Waste Systems)?
O Yes S No k. Could this affect the function of systems or components required for compliance with the Limiting Conditions for Operation in the Technical Specifications?
O Yes ENo 1. In the judgment of the evaluator, is a Safety Evaluation required?
If the answer to any question in Part 3 is "Yes", then a Safety Evaluation is required prior to implementation. Check the appropriate block and provide any explanatory coments below:
- 4. SAFETY EVALUATION REQUIRED 7 0 Yes MNo
- 5. PREPARED BY: u O
em d /Sc . N u e_ . E m Date c d 9 4 r
/ Title () / '
APPROVED BY: ( fA) /Ac/ b [ A bn d r Date S M 9 J'
(/" Title
)
N0P83E5 Rev. 7 Page 30 of 36 l
1 Attachment 5 Memo to F. A. Mulcahy from J. A. Seery dated July 31,1974;
Subject:
Tech Spec Scram Times
ummi (7sosroN EoisoN couPANY FILE n-om v nfy mumur T, .!. Mr . F,,,,,,A.t,,Mu,ka.h7- FR o M.. ..MII.e...da.. A....$e eU.. D ATE...J.Q1y..k.19.71_ _
M Alk. PHONE TECH. SPEC. SCP&i TLC.c.S
References:
x ::xt p s w w ,- m-s
- 1. Memo to W. J. Neal from Bob Lut=an, dated Jan. 25, 1972, subject: Control Rod Scra:t Tir.as , with at tachments.
2 Letter to Directorate of Licensing, .USAEC signed by James Carroll, dated October 16,.1973,
Subject:
Results of Transient Reanalyses for Pilgrim with End-Of-Cycle Core Dynamics Characteristics
- 3. Tech. Spec. 3.3.C In reference 1, Bob LuccIn derived factors to apply to the Tech. Spec. scram time limits to account for the difference between the percent rod insertion (10, 50 and 907.) and the actual position (drop out 44, pick-up 24 and pick-up of 04) we use to monitor sercs times on the process computer.
As ycu know, change number 5 to the Tech. Specs. has revised the scram time limits and also added a requirement to check the 307. insertion time. The revision is due to' the change in end of cycle reactivity insertion rate and I
the subsequent analysis presented to the AEC in reference 2. A consequence of thic analysis is that the Control Rod Scram Position ys. Time curve used
+W,0.+ksi.yewin, Bob-Lutmanis Aerivation is sno. longer valid,and.- ahould.,be. .replaeed s by:.F.igure m;..
2, Centrol Rod Scr.=t Times - Pilgrim, in Reference 2.
Based on Figure 2 I have recalculated the factors to apply to the Tech. Spec, '
scram times including the new 307, criterion, as follows: ,
, 1. Insertion 7. 10 30 50 90
- 2. Insertion (in.) 144 x (D 14.4 43.2 72.0 129.6
- 3. Hotch Observation DO 44' PU 34 PU 24 PU 04
- 4. Notch Location (inch) 144x3.0x@ 12.0 42,0 72.0 132.0
- 5. Z L Switch (inch) +.56 .56 .56 .56
- 6. __L Hystereses (inch) +.25 +.25 +.25 +.25 7, observation Location (in.) 0+@+ 12.8 41.7 71.7 131.7
- 6. O L Observation f-@ @ -1,6 -1.5 40.0
-0.3 40.0
+2.1 19.2
- 9. ' . L/.it (in/sec.) From Fi g. 2 40.0 10..i t Observa tion (sec.) h/@ .040 .037 .0075 +.110
,'. Tech. Spec. Correction: .04 .04 .01 +.11 i
The net effect is that for the 107. insertion, the observation critarion should be 04 sec. less than the specified criterien given in Tech. Spec. 3.3.0; likewise 307. should be .04 sec. less, 507. shculd be .01 sec. less and 90~.
should be 11 sec. greater.
A.
1 JAS/cen
) .
cc: G. D. Nston
G -. _
r ,i , ,,
, -:- '] ],
.,7 f ,
. * , gr - y I.
- O .
' 4-s {' 'I
- l ij y * *}.9.
- s 7,'
':1 * 'ly .
e ill6.If i
= 7,a,*s. .!.* s
? * *t*
- I -
.Ysh y..IS"- .
to [
.( :#E* ' [ ,
- .'. .,(E. -
- _ .;,Q ,:,,
- s *t: R.c. * < .
}g - . b. ,. . f
. e ; m.:* .
.S
.$.lG f4 5 ', 0* ---*
_ } *),2 $ . *
-}$lk
y ;'. .3 And. M *, - Aar
. t'
- CO t .
f.e %,r:.
e -) '*
. .$ .T 1 * - *
,J.*;p' *
[ mat:Cf OFi Y P!'*AL. 'I .
3 .
+
RICitif EXP.!nKtJCC
- se - 36 e-ry
- ? ..*
. t y. .
- i : .. - .
- 1. .-
~
c g so -
, -\
e.: " .
- s s3
.a.
a ..
ik' 507s 22.1 'I. , 4 6- Am J *
'. ,__. s1.p -: , - - .
s.t eu- m m
$ ;_y -
fu.f..
.$ [t N - e .'
g _ ,
Y conntrar . .
i TECHtllCAL ' 1 SPECIFICATIOf4 ,
N *
, f. **.* ,'
PROPOSEDtitW
't . ~ .
10 -
T LCHfJ1 CAL SPECIFICATlON f
y .
s l 3 ,
l I 50 t i i 4.0
- 0 L i . 2.0 [
- 3.0 - .
o 0.2 o4 o.E 0.a 1.0 w .
- * =
ELAf 5CD TIME AFT [R SCRAM 5tGt4 AL(sett .
g
. PILGRIM
' FIGURE 2. CONTR01. R00 . DRIVE SCR AM TIMES - *
- h* .:'
s"m g '^ _ . .
O ...y.
g * % .k... .
,s. '
3 .r.
s'.
-t'.'
g,e
+ *
'y-1F .
L m
O h - ,,-n. , + . - , . . - . - - - , - , . -- ., , .-
Attachment 6 l Figures 1&2, Comparison of Old and New Scram Times for TS 3.3.C.1 and Comparison of Old and New Scram Times !
for TS 3.3.C.2, respectively I
l l
l l
l l
. yo .
FIGURE 1 TECH SPEC 3.3.C.1 l ROD POSITION OLD TBES (SEC) .
NOTCH % TS TIMES DEL TBES OLD TBES NEW TBES DEL TBE DO 44 10 0.550 0.042 0.508 0.504 -0.004 DO 34 30 1.275 0.023 1.252 1.249 -0.003 !
DO 24 50 2.000 -0.017 2.017 2.013 -0.004 DO 04 90 3.500 -0.083 3.583 3.575 -0.008 COMPARSION OF OLD AND NEW SCRAM TIMES FOR TS 3.3.C.1 4.000 3.500 3.000
_ 2.500 b
en 5
[ 2.000 E
l 1.500 8 OLD TIMES 1.000 A NEW TIMES l
0.500 1
O.000 . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 PERCENTAGE INSERTION uer
~
FIGURE 2 TECH SPEC 3.3.C.2 ROD POSITION OLD TIMES (SEC)
NOTCH % TS TIMES DEL TIMES OLD TIMES NEW TIMES DEL TIME DO 44 10 0.58 0.042 0.538 0.534 -0.004 DO 34 30 1.35 0.023 1.327 1.324 -0.003 DO 24 50 2.12 -0.017 2.137 2.134 -0.003 DO 04 90 3.71 -0.083 3.793 3.790 -0.003 COMPARSION OF OLD AND NEW SCRAM TIMES FOR TS 3.3.C.2 4.000 ,
5 3.500 -
3.000 2.500 V
$ a y 2.000 sh 1.500 a
8 OLD TIMES 1.000 A
NEW TIMES l 0.500 a i l
0.000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 PERCENTAGE INSERTION
1 i
i Attachment 7 Letter to J. S. Chamley from G. C. Lainas dated March 22,1986;
Subject:
Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-23011-P-A, "GE Generic Licensing Reload Report, "
Supplement to Amendment 11 - MFN - 029-086