st. lucie, units 1 and 2 - application for technical ... · 3/18/2004 · with anc/paragon were...

0January 19, 2016FPL~ L-20 16-008

!I=111 •10 CFR 50.90

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAttn: Document Control DeskWashington, D. C. 20555

Re: St. Lucie Units 1 and 2Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389Application for Technical Specification Change Regarding Moderator TemperatureCoefficient (MTC) Surveillance Test Elimination at the End of Cycle.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) requests to amend FacilityOperating License DPR-67 for St. Lucie Unit 1 and NPF- 16 for St. Lucie Unit 2.

The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications (TS) to implementelimination of the end-of-cycle moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance test assupported by NRC-Approved Topical Report CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A, Analysis ofModerator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the Technical Specifcation Endof Cycle Negative MTC Limit, and St. Lucie specific supporting information. This amendmentrequest also proposes to add a previously NRC approved Westinghouse PARAGON TopicalReport WCAP- 16045-P-A, Revision 0 to the list of COLR methodologies in TS 6.9.1 .11 .b foruse in future licensing applications for both the St. Lucie Units.

The Enclosure provides FPL's evaluation of the proposed changes. Attachment 1 to theEnclosure provides the existing TS pages marked up to show the proposed changes. Attachment2 to the Enclosure provides the clean TS pages with the changes incorporated. Attachment 3 tothe Enclosure provides an informational copy of the proposed changes to the TS Bases.

This letter contains no new or revised regulatory commitments.

FPL requests that the LAR be processed normally, with approval of the proposed amendmentwithin one year and the amendment being implemented within 90 days of NRC approval.

The license amendment proposed by FPL has been reviewed bY the St. Lucie Plant OnsiteReview Group. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(b)(1), a copy of the proposed licenseamendment is being forwarded to the State Designee for the State of Florida.

Please contact Mr. Eric Katzman, Licensing Manager at 772-467-7734 if there are any questionsabout this submittal.

Florida Power & Light Company ,, ,

6501 S. Ocean Drive, Jensen Beach, FL 34957

L-20 16-008

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on January , ,2016

Sincerely,

Christopher R. CostauzoSite Vice PresidentSt. Lucie Plant

CRC/KWF

Enclosure

cc: NRC Region II AdministratorSt. Lucie Plant NRC Senior Resident InspectorMs. Cindy Becker, Florida Department of Health

L-20 16-008Enclosure

Page 1 of 23

ENCLOSURE

Evaluation of the Proposed Change

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1.0 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION .................................................................... 2

2.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION..................................................................... 22.1 Proposed TS Changes........................................................................... 2

3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION................................................................... 33.1 MTC Surveillance .............................................................................. 33.2 COLR Methodology ............................................................................ 6

4.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION ............................................................... 64.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria ............................................... 64.2 Precedent ........................................................................................ 74.3 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination....................................... 74.4 Conclusions...................................................................................... 9

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION ..................................................... 9

6.0 REFERENCES................................................................................... 10

ATTACHMENTS

1. Markup of Technical Specification Pages............................................ 112. Word Processes Technical Specification Pages ...................................... 163. Proposed Technical Specification Bases Changes (Information Only)................. 21

L-2016-008Enclosure

Page 2 of 23

Application for Technical Specification Change RegardingModerator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) Surveillance Test

Elimination at the End of Cycle.

1.0 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specifications (TS) for St. Lucie Units 1 and2 to implement elimination of the end-of-cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC)surveillance test as supported by Topical Report CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A,Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the TechnicalSpecifi cation End of Cycle Negative .MTC Limit [Reference 1], and the additional St. Lucie plantspecific justification provided in this amendment request. The proposed amendment also addsthe Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON [Reference 2], to the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 TS list ofCore Operating Limits Report (COLR) methodologies.

2.0 DETAILED DESCRIPTION

2.1 Proposed TS Changes

Technical Specifications - Section 3.1.1.4, Moderator Temperature Coefficient

This licensee amendment request (LAR) revises St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 surveillancerequirements related to TS 3.1.1.4, "'Moderator Temperature Coefficient". The proposedchanges are based on Topical Report (TR) CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A, Analysis ofModerator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the Technical Specification Endof Cycle Negative MTC Limit. TS Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.1.1.4.2 is proposed to berevised as shown in Attachment 1.

The changes proposed are also consistent with the guidance from Revision 2 of TSTF-406-T,predicting End-Of-Cycle MTC and Deleting Need for End-Of-Cycle ]MTC Verification (NPSD-911-A), when considering the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 MTC Surveillance requirements approvedby the NRC for the implementation of Startup Testing Activity Reduction (STAR) program(Reference 3).

SR 4.1.1.4.2 currently provides for testing the MTC lower limit specified in the COLR, duringeach refueling cycle within 7 effective full power days (EFPDs) of reaching 2/3 of expected coreburnup. If the MTC is more negative than the lower limit specified in the COLR whenextrapolated to EOC, the testing may be repeated. Plant shutdown must occur prior to exceedingthe minimum allowable boron concentration at which MTC is projected to exceed the lowerlimit.

The proposed change for both the St. Lucie Units includes adding the following note to the SR4.1.1.4.2:


Page 3 of 23

Only required ifthe MTC determined in SR 4.1.1.4.1 is not within ± 1. 6pcm/°F of thecorresponding design values.

Technical Specifications - Section 6.9.1.11. Core Operating Limits Report (COLR)

This LAR adds the following Topical Report WCAP-16045-P-A, to the analytical methods listedin TS 6.9.1.11.b.

WCAP-1604 5-P-A, Revision 0, "Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport CodePARAGON, "August 2004 (Westinghouse Proprietary).

3.0 TECIHNICAL EVALUATION

3.1 MTC Surveillance

Topical Report CE NPSD-91 1-A provides the technical justification for this change. CE NPSD-911l-A, Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in support of a change in the TechnicalSpecification End-of-Cycle Negative MTC limit, CEOG Task 764, analyzed a database ofmeasured and calculated MTCs at CE-designed plants and established that if the measuredbeginning-of-cycle (BOC) moderator temperature coefficients fall within +0.16* 10E-4 Ap/°F(same as +±1.6 pcm/°F) of the design value, then it can be assumed that the EOC coefficient willalso be within +1.6 pcm/°F of the design value. Therefore, the BOC surveillance becomesunnecessary. Note that the tolerance limit of+1l.6 pcm/0 F, which is based on the measurementdata for isothermal temperature coefficient (ITC), remains applicable for both ITC and MTC aslong as consistent fuel temperature coefficient (FTC) is used in the design calculation and inobtaining MTC from the measured ITC.

CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A, which were approved by the NRC on June 14, 2000[Reference 4], require that the best estimate MTC (design value) must be based on the CEmethodology. The use of alternate method for cycle design along with the MTC surveillancerequirements applicable to St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 with the implementation of Startup TestingActivity Reduction (STAR) program is addressed below.

The NRC approved CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A subject to the five conditions below:

1. In order to ensure that the moderator temperature coefficient will not exceed theTechnical Specifcation limit with a confidence/tolerance of 95/95 percent, the cycle mustbe designed, using the CE methodology, such that the best estimate MTC is..

a. more negative than the BOC Technical Specification limit by the design margin,b. more positive than the EOC Technical Specifi cation limit by the design margin.

This condition requires that the cycle design must be performed using the CEmethodology with the calculated best estimate MTC at BOC and EOC having a defineddesign margin to the respective TS/COLR limit. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 nuclear design


•Page 4 of 23

currently is performed using the Westinghouse ANC/PHOENIX-P code system. Tojustify the application of CE NPSD-91 1-A without using the CE methodology,Westinghouse performed benchmark calculations to support the use of ANC/PHOENIX-P and ANC/PARAGON in place of DIT/ROCS, the CE methodology.

As part of generating a 95/95 percent confidence/tolerance limit for the MTC generatedwith other than CE methodology, Westinghouse performed benchmarks usingDIT/ROCS, PHOENIX-P/ANC and PARAGON/ANC codes based on measurementsfrom several CE-NSSS plants, including St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The results from thebenchmarks showed similar agreement of the codes with the measured data, anddetermined that the design margin of ±1.6 pcnm/°F determined in CE NPSD-91 1-A andAmendment 1-A for MTC verification using DIT/ROCS continues to remain applicablefor ANC/PHIOENIX-P and ANC/PARAGON code packages. The benchmark resultswith ANC/PARAGON were previously provided by Westinghouse to the NRC in letterLTR-NRC-05-37 [Reference 5]. Presented below are the benchmark results ofANC/PHOENIX-P based on 61 separate measurements from several CE-NSSS plants,including St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The use of ANC/PHOENIX-P or ANC/PARAGONmethodology in place of DIT/ROCS code for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 to generate thedesign MTC value for use in the EOC MTC elimination process is thus justified.

ANC/PHOENIX-P Benchmark Results1

Standard Deviation 0.58 pcm/°F

9 5/95 Tolerance Limit 1.17 pcm/°F

Uncertaintyr Allowance±16pmF(Design margin) _____________

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 specific comparison data, for the past few cycles, of the MTCmeasured and design values generated with the ANC/PHOENIX-P code package ispresented below in Tables 1 and 2. To satisfy the EOC MTC elimination TSrequirements, Florida Power & Light Company will continue to use the WestinghouseAPA code package (ANC/PHOENIX or ANC/PARAGON) for the core design with adesign margin of ±1.6 pcm/°F to the respective BOC and BOC MTC TS/COLR limits.

2. The design margin is determined to be 1. 6pcm/°F at all times in life.

The design margin used for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 will be 1.6 pcm/°F at all times in corelife. This margin is applicable for cycle designs done using ANC/PARAGON as well asANC/PHOENIX-P codes as justified above.

3. The analysis of the revised data base, including the most recent measured andcalculated MTCs, has established that if the measured beginning-of-cycle moderatortemperature coefficients are within 1. 6pcm/°F of the best estimate prediction, then it can


Page 5 of 23

be assumed that the end-of-cycle coefficient will also be within 1. 6pcm/°F of theprediction and its measurement is not required.

The proposed TS changes are consistent with this condition and the EOC MTCmeasurement will not be required if MTC determined at BOC is within 1.6 pcm/°F of thedesign value. This is based on the evaluation which shows that the EOC MTC will alsobe within 1.6 pcn/°F of the design value. Cycle design performed using this designmargin will thus ensure that the analysis assumptions with respect to the MTC willcontinue to be met.

The reload analysis for each cycle design calculates a conservative end-of-cycle MTCbased on limiting operating conditions allowed by the TS/COLR and using an allowedcycle bumnup that bounds the planned cycle operation. Any changes to the plantoperation which could impact the calculated limiting BOC MTC design value are re-evaluated to ensure that the cycle MTC design value remains within 1.6 pcm/°F of therespective COLR limit in the conservative direction. This process ensures that the safetyanalysis requirements for MTC will continue to be met for all times in life.

Tables 1 and 2 show the comparison of the design and measured MTC data for St. LucieUnits 1 and 2 for the last 3 cycles.

______________________ Table 1 (St. Lucie Unit 1) _____________

BOC HZP BOC HFP EOC HFP(M - P) MTC pcm/°F (M - P) MTC pcm/°F (M - P) MTC pcm/°F

Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle TCycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle24 25 26 24 25 26 24 25 26

0.39 0.32 0.50 0.17__{-0.35 STAR -0.17__ -0.68 *

M =Measured value P = Predicted (design) value * = EOC not reached

_____________________ Table 2 (St. Lucie Unit 2) ____________

BOC HZP BOC HFP EOC HFP(M - P) MTC pcm/°F (M - P) MTC pcm/°F (M - P) MTC pcm/°F

Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle Cycle20 21 22 20 21 22 20 21 22

-0.56 -0.11 -0.14 -1.52 STAR STAR -0.66 0.58 *

M = Measured value P = Predzcted (design) value = gut¢ not reached

L-2016-008Enclosure

Page 6 of 23

4. The measured data reduction must be based on the current CE methodology asdescribed in the report.

As stated in Westinghouse letter LTR-NRC-05-37 to the NRC, with the merger of thenuclear businesses of ABB-CE and Westinghouse Electric Company, there has been anongoing effort to replace CE DIT/ROCS nuclear design package with the Westinghouseequivalent NRC-approved ANC/PARAGON and ANC/PHOENIX-P code packages.Westinghouse has performed several benchmarks of DIT/ROCS, ANC/PHOENJX-P andANC/PARAGON using measurements from several CE-NSSS plants and determined thatthe same design margin of±1 .6 pcm/°F for MTC verification continues to remainapplicable for ANC/PHOENIX-P and ANC/PARAGON code packages.

St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 have been using ANC/PHOENIX-P code for neutronics designfor the past several cycles and have found good agreement of the design data with thephysics testing measurement data. Comparison of the design and measured MTC valuesfor the past few cycles is presented above in Tables 1 and 2.

5. If the beginning-of-cycle measurements fail the acceptance criteria of ±l. 6 pcm/°F andthe discrepancy cannot be resolved, the end-of cycle surveillance test must be performed

The proposed changes to the MTC surveillance requirements are consistent with thiscondition and the failure to meet the ±-1.6 pcm!°F acceptance criteria, in the beginning ofcycle MTC measurement, will result in performing the MTC surveillance test, at the endof cycle, within 7 EFPD of reaching 2/3 of the expected cycle burnup. The beginning ofcycle MTC surveillance requirements for the St. Lucie units, subsequent to theimplementation of STAR, are defined in SR 4.l.l.4.la and 4.l.1.4.lb.

3.2 COLR Methodology

WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, "Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport CodePARAGON,"' has been approved by the NRC on March 18, 2004, with the conclusion in thesafety evaluation that the PARAGON code can be used as a replacement for the PHOENIX-Plattice code, wherever the PHOENIX-P code is used in NRC-approved methodologies. Both theSt. Lucie Units are currently licensed to use the PHOENIX-P code in reload analysis, and thusthe inclusion of PARAGON code in the list of COLR methodologies in TS 6.9.1.1 1.b is justifiedfor both St. Lucie Units.

4.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION

4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements/Criteria

In 10 CFR 50.36, the NRC established the regulatory requirements related to the content of theTS. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.36, the TS are required to include items in the following five specificcategories related to station operation:

L-2016-008Enclosure

Page 7 of 23

(1) Safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control settings;(2) Limiting conditions for operation (LCOs);(3) Surveillance requirements (SRs);(4) Design features; and(5) Administrative controls.

Although the proposed changes modify the MTC surveillance requirements, the MTCsurveillance requirements continue to remain in the TS. None of the other categories areimpacted by the proposed amendment to the MTC verification requirement.

Also, the proposed addition of the PARAGON Topical Report WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0 toTS 6.9.1.11 .b remains consistent with the regulatory requirement with respect to the abovecategory number five (Administrative Controls).

4.2 Precedent

A previous submittal for EOC MTC test elimination for Combustion Engineering plant designssuch as St. Lucie was approved by the NRC for Arizona Public Service Company (APS) PaloVerde Units on March 30, 2015 [Reference 6]. The TS amendment approved was very similar tothe proposed TS changes contained in this submittal with the support of Topical Report CE-NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A.

Other CE-design TS amendments related to BOC MTC test elimination that used CE-NPSD-91 1-A with Amendment 1-A were issued to Waterford Unit 3 and Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2[References 7 and 8]. The LARs for these plants were approved in April 2000 and November2001, respectively, and provided the same design margin tolerance of ±-1.6 pcmi/°F from the TR.

4.3 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specifications (TS) for St. Lucie Units 1 and2 to implement elimination of the end-of-cycle (EOC) moderator temperature coefficient (MTC)surveillance test as supported by Topical Report CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A,Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in the TechnicalSpecification End of Cycle Negative MTC Limit. The proposed amendment also adds theWestinghouse Topical Report WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON, to the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 TS list of CoreOperating Limits Report (COLR) methodologies.

Florida Power & Light Company has evaluated whether or not a significant hazardsconsideration is involved with the proposed amendment(s) by focusing on the three standards setforth in 10 CFR 50.92, "Issuance of amendment," as discussed below:


Page 8 of 23

1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability orconsequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of end-of-cycle (BOC) moderatortemperature coefficient (MTC) if the beginning-of-cycle (BOC) measurements are withina given tolerance of the design values. MTC is not an initiator of any accident previouslyevaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is notsignificantly increased.

The BOC MTC value is an important assumption in determining the consequences ofaccidents previously evaluated. The analysis presented in the Topical Report CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, with additional justification provided in this amendmentrequest, determined that the BOC MTC will be within design limits if the BOC MTCdesign values are within a given tolerance of the measured values. Therefore, the BOCMTC will continue to be within design limits and the consequences of accidents willcontinue to be as previously evaluated.

The addition of WCAP-16045-P-A, which has been previously approved by the NRC forlicensing applications to TS 6.9.1.11 .b, is an adnministrative change which has no impacton the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

As a result, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probabilityor consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accidentfrom any accident previously evaluated?

Response: No.

A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if the BOCmeasurements are within a given tolerance of the design values. Also, a new previouslyapproved methodology is proposed to be included in the TS list of COLR methodologies.The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new ordifferent type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governingnormal plant operation.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident from any accident previously evaluated.


Page 9 of 23

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

Response: No.

A change is proposed to eliminate the measurement of EOC MTC if the BOCmeasurements are within a given tolerance of the design values. The Topical Report CENPSD-9 11-A and Amendment 1-A, with additional justification provided in thisamendment request, concluded that the risk of not measuring the EOC MTC is acceptablysmall provided that the BOC measured values are within a specific tolerance of thedesign values. Also, WCAP-16045-P-A proposed to be added to TS 6.9.1.11, has beenpreviously approved by the NRC for licensing applications to be used consistent with theapproved methodologies. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significantreduction in a margin of safety.

Based on the above, Florida Power & Light Company concludes that the proposed amendment(s)do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92,and, accordingly, a finding of "no significant hazards consideration" is justified.

4.4 Conclusions

Topical Report CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A provide the supporting documentation forplants of original CE type design eliminating the need to perform EOC MTC surveillancetesting. CE NPSD-91 1-A and Amendment 1-A were approved by the NRC via SafetyEvaluation on June 14, 2000. The proposed changes in this LAR are consistent with CE NPSD-911-A and Amendment 1-A, and therefore, the proposed changes are considered acceptable forSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2.

The NRC has approved, via Safety Evaluation on March 18, 2004, the use of PARAGON codeas a replacement for the PHOENIX-P lattice code in the NRC-approved methodologies. Theaddition of PARAGON code Topical Report to the list of COLR methodologies is thus justifiedfor both St. Lucie Units which currently use the PHOENIX-P lattice code for reload cycledesign.

Based on the considerations discussed above, it is concluded that (1) there is reasonableassurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in theproposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission'sregulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defenseand security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

A review has determined that this TS amendment would change a requirement with respect toinstallation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR20, or would change an inspection or surveillance requirement. However, the proposed changesdo not involve (i) a significant hazards consideration, (ii) a significant change in the types or

L-2016-008Enclosure

Page 10 of 23

significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, or (iii) asignificant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The NRC haspreviously issued a proposed finding that similar amendments to the CE STS involve nosignificant hazards considerations, and there was no public comment on the finding.Accordingly, the proposed changes meet the eligibility criterion for categorical exclusion setforth in 10 CFR 51 .22(c)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impactstatement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the proposedamendments.

6.0 REFERENCES

1. Combustion Engineering Owners Group Topical Report, CE-NPSD-91 1-A andAmendment 1-A, Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of aChange in the Technical Specification End-of-Cycle Negative MTC Limits, datedSeptember 15, 2000.

2. Westinghouse Topical Report WCAP-16045-P-A, Revision 0, Qualification of the Two-Dimensional Transport Code PARAGON, August 2004, and NRC Safety Evaluation forthe Topical Report, dated March 18, 2004.

3. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Evaluation, St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and2 - Issuance of Amendments Regarding Moderator Temperature Coefficient SurveillanceRequirements (TAC No s. MF 1888 and MF 1889), dated September 16, 2014.

4. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Letter, Acceptance for Referencing of CE NPSD-911, "Analysis of Moderator Temperature Coefficients in Support of a Change in theTechnical Specifications End-of-Cycle Negative MTC Limit", and Amendment 1 (TACNO. MA9036), dated June 14, 2000.

5. Westinghouse Letter LTR-NRC-05-37 to NRC (ADAMS Accession No. ML051740481),EOL MTC Elimination Informational Benchmark, dated June 17, 2005.

6. US NRC Safety Evaluation, Palo Verde Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Issuanceof Amendments Re: Technical Specification Change Regarding Moderator TemperatureCoefficient Surveillance For Startup Test Activity Reduction Program (TAC Nos.M\F3 143, MIF3 144, and MF3 145). dated March 30, 2015.

7. US NRC Safety Evaluation, Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 - Issuance ofAmendment Re: Moderator Temperature Coefficient Test Near End of Each Cycle (TACNo. MA378 1), dated April 21, 2000.

8. US NRC Safety Evaluation, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 - Issuance ofAmendments Re: Deletion of Moderator Temperature Coefficient (MTC) Determinationat Two-Thirds Core Burnup (TAC No. MB 1840), dated November 16, 2001.


Page 11 of 23

Attachment 1

Markup of Technical Specification Pages

Unit 1

3/4 1-66-1 9b

Unit 2

3/4 1-56-20e


Page 12 of 23Attachment 1

FffACItVITY COWTROL SYSTEMS

SURVEILLANCE REOUIREMENTS tcntflued} .4.11 42_3• \ eri~ MTc :is - inthNe low•er limit Specif itd.in~ the.C

Each fuiel :c~c e •n~hnn 7 EFFO of reach~ho f3f dexpeced core bumiup.

If MIC is more ne..ative: tlian the low•er limit •pec~ied .in the: CCLR •¢1.en e;•tnapvlated tothe~endl of cycl, 4.11.4•2 may be repeated;. Shutdowq :must occur prior to exceedingthe minimum altOoabie boron :concerntra• ont wthic MTC •s projected to e. teed :the

ot Li oi_ - UNT 'I



.ADINIS•ITRA€TIVE C'PNTROLS

coRE OPENRAING LiMITS REzPORT-(co~ntinued}

20. EMF:-I961 (PA){A :Statfs tel Setpontiranien~t Methodolcgy forr

Con •busfion Engineering .Type Reactors"

21. EMF•-2310{ P)A). "SRP Chlapter 151 Nor-LOCA M1ethodcolg! forPres•surized Wate Reac~crs," Revision• 1; as sup emnerded b.AN P-•3OtX(Pl,. "St. Lucie Unit I' EPIJ - lnfonnatinr to Suppo•rt LicenseAmendment Requea.L' R~evisiorn 0.

22. EMF-2328(PJ A] 'PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Mcde•, 5-RELARSEtased? Revision 0;: as supplemented by AN P-3D•00{P), "StL.Lucvie Unit "IEPU1 - lnfoirnatb.n to ,up orn Ucense A~mendment Recquest? Revision &.

23. E F•-2 03(P{A.), °Realistic Large Brea~kLOCA M~eloology forPressuri.ed Jater Reacors• Revson % ;as sapplen ented$ byANP-2903(P}, ='St. Lucie N uclear Plant.Linit.1 EPUI Cycle Realistic LargeBreaIk LOICA sumniar Report wilb Zr-4. Fue Clt "~ Re "" 1..

24. •-AW-IQ240(P (A) Revisin 0, incrporation f M5 Properie ir 'Frana~toire AN{P Appr oved M~ethods?".

sTr LUC;IE- urrr! 1I AzN.nendnent Nc44 Ig4; , 4-41-..

L-2016-008Enclosure


REAG1VITY COH•TROI_ SYSTEM:S

M OPERAOR TETAPERA lRE COEFFICIE1m

L1uITImJG CONDITION FOP OPEPJTION

specifed in the ,COLR_ The m~aximu•m upj•er lImit shal be +5.pe dtF at 70Z% of.RATED:THERMAL POWEP• with a :lix~ar ramp. from +5 pcm-)~W at 70% o~f RATE) ThER:MALSPOWER to 0 pan. F at 100%!• R:ATD ThIPRMAL POW'•ER.

APPLIgAP:IUTY; :MODES IND 2"#.'

ACTION:

J•lt the modlerator ipe~•reture imetllen• oue~d; •I. 'ere ef the ab~te ruita, be in a•t l~act H-oT

•S-TANDEY •,i~in 6 h~ours.

• IJPVEILIANCE PE ~t:IPEMFNTN

4A. iA-4A•1 ,eify, MTC i:s, wi-hin seupper uin- specifi~ed in LCO 3.. IA:..

a: :Prior toentelirg IMODE 1:.after each fuel load~g: and

b. Each fu~e cycle Wid[h 7:effe& efull er• days {ErDI) ofreacing•4D EFPB:

core I unup.*

# See: Special Test •.eplin 310t2 a~nd 3:10.5.* V [:h • reaterl•aflot equa! t i o.:**: Only requi~red to :beerform~ed when".f MlC d~ete~rr•,hed prior to eteting.MO:DE ! is verifed• using

ad•u cp edc-tecd MC:. :"...."

.* f M T&TC.is more n egati ve a.n tlhe lower IiTt specified in the COLR when e rapolatec to the en~dof :cycle, 4: 1 4.2 maybe repea ed.• Shutdown• must occitr prir to exceeding: the mirnimualiowab e boron concetraton at ir~c MTC Ls projected io exc.eed the [ower limi.

lulired if be TC dot rufoed~ Lorras ot~ iii~ eegn ~elue. ~n SR 4.11. 1 is not 'bin + tO ni F of the

ST; LL•E -UNiT 2: • ,&,•: t -5, ST. LLCE~UNff. ~/4 1-5. Arrec ent N~4~ ~, 4~

L-2016-008Enclosure


ANAIWSTRAT1VF CONTROl S rintinned

CORE OPERATiNG UNIITS REPORT (COLRI (tOrlU

b. (CO nued

61. ATh11397-PA Rro~detary~, 'Rev<sedTherrnat Design Procedure~'ApnI19&9~

£2 WCAP4456&$A ~Prop4etary,, PRE-O Modt ng and Oval cat ~&Ptai&utaed Wa ~ React&r Non.LOCA ~jdratjiicSa An t,OtM*r 1999.

~3 CAP.145 AAOdeneiuml" attica ofAEBCrlfica1fie~tFluCorrelations PREOl ode, May 2001

64. Letter. N~ Jelferson Jr FPL) to Document Con li Desk USNRC), tSLLu& U 2 Docket No. 5D-2~99 Proposed Ucens~ Amendriieat '~CAP-.9272 Reload Methodology and I omen op 3QV Steam GrwatorT

U t-20D3~275.Dece ZOOd NRCSEa telI January 1,ettqrSTNtg ey NRC) ig4A$lo!l FPL TAC~MC t

65. W&AP-14502PAR ~U 'RETRAN-O2 wind ilt forWas Pressunzed Water Reac~ NOUVLOCA Sat Aniysas~Apri 1909.

£6, GAP-79O9- Re 0 TACTRAN-A FORTRAN fVCade formTransients m a 1J02 Fuel Rod', Decemlxr 1929.

~r AOAW 799~ va MNKkE~Af DimenalonalNeuterqpd~ January 1975

& WOAP~75$6 Re IA'ME a. tonoP R~Ele&onAcctentinWesingliouse Pressurized Wa er geactnt~ Special ~netlCs

a at January 1975.

c. The core operahng aSts shall be deterorned suth that appbcdblern4se g,fuel thermal mechanIcal P cOre hennal Ii linus enw~OtreCool big Sytnis'(ECCS , 6u ear keats. as SHUTDCVJJ MARITht

ant jss ctsts, and accident anal~srs ~m tS ~fTh# safety anatysts 3W

4. iie COLR. ud g mid re ~K i's supplem&rts shall be #4upos ancefornc reload cycleon eNRC;

V - ss4r ReVsionW at c ti jno to niftiest ~p K

Tm oriCQil PARAI At Ansi DOt

ST. LLICtE L 2 -20& An~endrrent Nn~4~~J-,t-~33y-3t,rr~ ma



Word Processed Technical Specification Pages

Unit 1

3/4 1-66-19b

Unit 2

3/4 1-56-20e


Page 17 of 23

Attachment 2

REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS (continued)

4.1.1 .4.2*** Verify MTC is within the lower limit specified in the COLR.****

Each fuel cycle within 7 EFPD of reaching 2/3 of expected core burnup.

k'' If MTC is more negative than the lower limit specified in the COLR when extrapolated tothe end of cycle, 4.1.1.4.2 may be repeated. Shutdown must occur prior to exceedingthe minimum allowable boron concentration at which MTC is projected to exceed thelower limit.

Only Required if the MTC determined in SR 4.1.1.4.1 is not within _+ 1.6 pcmPF of thecorresponding design value.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 3/4 1-6 ST. LCIE UNIT1 3/ 1-6Amendment No. 2~~-9,


Page 18 of 23

Attachment 2

ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (continued)

20. EMF-1 961 (P)(A), "Statistical Setpoint/Transient Methodology forCombustion Engineering Type Reactors"

21. EMF-2310(P)(A), "SRP Chapter 15 Non-LOCA Methodology forPressurized Water Reactors," Revision 1, as supplemented byANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit 1 EPU - Information to Support LicenseAmendment Request," Revision 0.

22. EMF-2328(P)(A), "PWR Small Break LOCA Evaluation Model, S-RELAP5Based," Revision 0, as supplemented by ANP-3000(P), "St. Lucie Unit 1EPU - Information to Support License Amendment Request," Revision 0.

23. EMF-2103(P)(A), "Realistic Large Break LOCA Methodology forPressurized Water Reactors," Revision 0, as supplemented byANP-2903(P), "St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Unit 1 EPU Cycle Realistic LargeBreak LOCA summary Report with Zr-4 Fuel Cladding," Revision 1.

24. BAW-1 0240(P)(A) Revision 0, "Incorporation of M5 Properties inFramatome ANP Approved Methods."

25. WCAP-1 6045-P-A, Revision 0, "Qualification of the Two -DimensionalTransport Code PARAGON," August 2004.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 1 6-19b Amendment No. -16, 4-T-1, l:4-4,2-13,248


Page 19 of 23

Attachment 2

REACTIVITY CONTROL SYSTEMS

MODERATOR TEMPERATURE COEFFICIENT

LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION

3.1.1.4 The moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) shall be maintained within the limitsspecified in the COLR. The maximum upper limit shall be +5 pcm/°F at < 70% of RATEDTHERMAL POWER, with a linear ramp from +5 pcm/°F at 70% of RATED THERMALPOWER to 0 pcm/°F at 100% RATED THERMAL POWER.

APPLICABILITY: MODES 1 AND 2*#.

ACTION:

With the moderator temperature coefficient outside any one of the above limits, be in at least HOT

STANDBY within 6 hours.

SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS

4.1.1.4.1 Verify MTC is within the upper limit specified in LCO 3.1.1.4.

a. Prior to entering MODE 1 after each fuel loading, and

b. Each fuel cycle within 7 effective full power days (EFPD) of reaching 40 EFPD

core burnup. **

4.1.1.4.2"** Verify MTC is within the lower limit specified in the COLR.*~**

Each fuel cycle within 7 EFPD of reaching 2/3 of expected core burnup.

# See Special Test Exception 3.10.2 and 3.10.5.* With Keff greater than or equal to 1.0.

** Only required to be performed when MTC determined prior to entering MODE 1 is verified usingadjusted predicted MTC.

** If MTC is more negative than the lower limit specified in the COLR when extrapolated to the endof cycle, 4.1.1.4.2 may be repeated. Shutdown must occur prior to exceeding the minimumallowable boron concentration at which MTC is projected to exceed the lower limit.

... Only Required if the MTC determined in SR 4.1.1.4.1 is not within +_ 1.6 pcm/°F of the

corresponding design value.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 2 3/4 1-5 Amendment No. 44, 26, 86, 92, 426,,468



ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (,continued)

CORE OPERATING LIMITS REPORT (COLR) (continued)

b. (continued)

61. WCAP-1 1397-P-A, (Proprietary), 'Revised Thermal Design Procedure," April

1989.

62. WCAP-14565-P-A, (Proprietary), 'V/IPRE-Ol Modeling and Qualification forPressurized Water Reactor Non-LOCA Thermal-Hydraulic Safety Analysis,"October 1999.

63. WCAP-14565-P-A, Addendum 1, "Qualification of ABB Critical Heat FluxCorrelations with VIPRE-O1 Code," May 2003.

64. Letter, W. Jefferson Jr. (FPL) to Document Control Desk (USNRC), 'St.Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389: Proposed License Amendment WCAP-9272 Reload Methodology and Implementing 30%• Steam Generator TubePlugging Limit," L-2003-276, December 2003 (NRC SER dated January 31,2005, Letter B.T. Moroney (NRC) to J.A. Stall (FPL), TAC No. MC1566).

65. WCAP-14882-P-A, Rev. 0, "RETRAN-02 Modeling and Qualification forWestinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor Non-LOCA Safety Analyses",April 1999.

66. WCAP-7908-A, Rev. 0, "FACTRAN-A FORTRAN IV Code for ThermalTransients in a UO2 Fuel Rod", December 1989.

67. WCAP-7979-P-A, Rev. 0, "TWINKLE - A Multi-Dimensional Neutron KineticsComputer Code", January 1975.

68. WCAP-7588, Rev. 1-A, "An Evaluation of the Rod Ejection Accident inWestinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors Using Special KineticsMethods", January 1975.

69. WCAP-1 6045-P-A, Revision 0, 'Qualification of the Two-DimensionalTransport Code PARAGON," August 2004.

c. The core operating limits shall be determined such that all applicable limits (e.g.,fuel thermal mechanical limits, core thermal hydraulic limits, Emergency CoreCooling Systems (ECCS) limits, nuclear limits such as SHUTDOWN MARGIN,transient analysis limits, and accident analysis limits) of the safety analysis are met.

d. The COLR, including any mid cycle revisions or supplements, shall be providedupon issuance for each reload cycle on the NRC.

ST. LUCIE - UNIT 2 6-20e Amendment No.4-05,1448, 4,=%, 42,8,44-7, 46,

L-2016-008Enclosure


Proposed Technical Specification Bases Change(Information Only)

INSERT A:

SR 4.1.1.4.2 is only required if the MTC determined in SR 4.1.1.4.1 is not within ±1.6 pcm/°F ofthe corresponding design value when the difference cannot be reconciled. Analysis has shownthat if the results of the beginning of cycle moderator temperature coefficient verification fallwithin +1.6 pcm/0 F of the corresponding design values, then it can be assumed that the end ofcycle coefficient will also agree with the design value within ±1.6 pcm/°F and the measurementat EOC is not required.



•_• TECHNICAL .SPESCIE- CATION',S .•-...

..... BASES ATTACH EtC• S• •OF A sif2o4 •

:3141.1i; B ORATION :CONTROL (tCOfur•nid)!

3/4.1..1:.41 MODE{RATOR TEMPERATURE C:OEFFICIENT !MTC) (continu~ed}:

SR 4.:11 :4]2 is moied by a No•e awvih'h indicates that iti[he extrapolatedl

SutveXl~nce: may :be repec a~d; andthe .uldormd .must occur pnrf :toiexceeding the minimum allo; abie, boron Icon can ra onI1 ic~t:ii4 I. JTC :is•

pro~ec ed to exceed: h~e i cce limi~t' Ad ev ualon :to detarin te li s;

iiThe saT ely alyexpcS:• iesriot violgateda.ort••odirs:

•:Tthe requireer:nt or meaurene w•tsin e •FPI v•"Bofm •reahn 23itcire a:

bump, atisfie the co T::•sirmiantoycte i the~ a most -ative IT aue

pre. ~atd _ EQ MT "i eeautdIeoer&ro ~ ~~ ece

peiniit; direct cmaiso h T lsspcfe nteCL



•c~~qc~~o.: t TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIOgNS #:E•. i.,: •.

•so•;:- .............. .. :REACTIVilY CONTROL SYSTEM~S"S.... ... S:T. LUCIE UNIT. 2 ....

.BASES: (con inued)

3 41•.•1.4: MODERATOR TEMNPERATURE COEFFICIENT (co0itned)

e ceed~ing the minirnm ailo ;•a e-tb•i:on centration at •hich M•TC; •S.

•in h!e sfe!t aniIyss is.no! 'iolated;

T •e requireent for mreasuremnt,,,( iiin"7 EFPDof r"•eachin8 123 co0re

up, sasfe ~cthec nfi~rmao tlt•ectof whe .no~t nghe MTC vati lu4hte.Tkeaor.Oooasu nt pSfore d a te any, TeHERMALe Pes ER~ 5so; TIh

pOjEc L EOC s~TC nta sbem evaubbated' bfore h~e rea.tcr ..p~ essehesseisEO cbove i:S on.aa R.TC. a-es etra.e: "e"k :o .... an ....... a "

:SERmi ieT :&A rie oeM issee nteCt

st. lucie, units 1 and 2 - application for technical ... · 3/18/2004 · with anc/paragon were...

Documents