ML20043A481
| ML20043A481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1990 |
| From: | Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A482 | List: |
| References | |
| B13520, NUDOCS 9005220124 | |
| Download: ML20043A481 (6) | |
Text
_y 4
i:&..b '
i; f-
[.[
[J;
=
[
4 M
,1 General Ofhces
- Selden Street. Berlin. Connecticut.
t
~
~
e P.O.' BOX 270.
r l
.uar wie ec=ia c== '
HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 L
L a ""O"Olf,"".lO"
- (2m> ses-sm jl L
May 9,:1990 l
Docket No. 50-213.^
B13520-r
.Re:
10CFR50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Attention: Document Control Desk-
- Washington, DC.'.20555 2
-Gentlemen:
l i'
.-Haddam Neck Plant Revised' Technical Report Supporting ~ Cycle Operations
- )
. Proposed Chanaes to' Technical Specifications
(
I.
Technical Reoort Supportina Cycle Ooerations:-
i The purpose of this letter. is for ConnecticutJYankee Atomic _ Power Company.
l (CYAPC0) to submit to the - NRC Staff. a4 revised 1 Technical = Report Supporting Cycle Operations (TRSCO) to support: operation-of the Haddam Neck ' P1 ant-L for-Cycle 16. ' The TRSCO for Cycle 16 opera (t1)on was initially submitted to the NRC Staff in-a. letter dated July -28,1989. 3 ~ It has.been revised to reflect the impact on the revised. Cycle-'16 reload design due ' to fuel reconstitution ~ and-1 removal of the Thermal = Shield performed-during the. current (Cycle 15)-
refueling outage.
The revised TRSCO is included as Attachment. No.1 to this letter.
,a The following items represent some of the major changes from the TRSCO submit-ted to the Staff in the July 28,' 1989 letter:
o new core loading pattern and fuel inventory; t
o analyses performed accounting for. the two solid steel ~ " filler rods"
.and donor fuel rods present in the core; o
some accident analyses were reevaluated to assess the impact of-1 revised reload physics parameters,. thermal shield removal and an-increase in the steam. generator (SG) tube 600 tubes per SG;
~
plugging - limitD to t
(1)
E. J. Mroczka letter to the U.S.. Nuclear l Regulatory Commission, "Haddam Neck Pl ant, Cycle 16
- Reload, Proposed ' Changes to Technical Specifications,". dated July 28, 1989.
i 9005220124 900509 PDR ADOCK 05000213
/
P PDC ff[g{l j
OS3422 REV 4 88 1
. /\\
p c
s i
-(.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13520\\Page 2 May 9, 1990 o
-some of the core operating limits 'were changed, such as moderator temperature coefficient (MTC), axial offset (AO), and linear heat generator rate (LHGR).
II.- ProDosed Chanaes to Technical Soecification 5.3.1 Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, CYAPC0 hereby proposes to amend Operating License DPR-61 by incorporating the attached (Attachment No. 2) changes into the i
Technical. Specifications-for the Haddam Neck Plant.
These proposed changes are being ' submitted -to support the startup of the Haddam Neck P1 ant from its current refueling outage.
These changes p ne previously submitted to the NRC
.j Staff in a letter dated November 22, 1989, W as part of the conversion of-the I
Haddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications to Standard Technical Specification i
(STS) format.
However, <the NRC Staff recently informed CYAPC0 that this I
particular proposed change could not be -issued as part of the STS format conversion and would have to be addressed separately.
[J Backaround During the current Cycle 15 refueling outage, inspections revealed that ther_e were failed fuel rods in assemblies intended for reinsertion back into the reactor for Cycle 16 operation.
This problem was corrected by fuel reconsti-1 tution with all known failed fuel rods - being. replaced..
During the fuel reconstitution effort two failed fuel rods were replaced with solid Type 304 stainless steel " filler rods."
The current Haddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications (See Section 5.3.1) do not address the option -of using the solid stainless steel rods in place of fuel rods.
Therefore, these proposed changes, which would allow this option, are required prior to' startup for Cycle 16.
Each reload that would contain any solid stainless steel rods would
(
be analyzed for acceptable' safety analysis results and reported to' the NRC Staff in the - TRSCO.
The TRSCO to support Cycle 16 operatioq3) which was submitted to the' NRC Staff in a letter. dated-July 28, 1989, has been i
revised to take into account the presence of the -two-solid stainless steel rods.
The revised TRSCO for Cycle 16 operations is_ included in Attachment No. 1.
i i
(2)
E. J. Mroczka letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Haddam Neck-Plant, Revised Technical Specifications," dated November 22, 1989.
J (3)
E. J. Mroczka letter to the U.S. Nucl' ear Regulatory Commission, "Haddam Neck
- Plant, Cycle 16
- Reload, Proposed Changes to Technical Specifications," dated July 28, 1989.
n o
- :t -
4 k'-
L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
3 B13520\\Page3 May 9, 1990 4
Description of Proposed Chanoes The proposed changes modify the Design Features Section 5.3.1,-
Fuel Assemblies. The reference to the four fuel assemblies clad with Zircaloy-4 to be allowed in the core for experimental-purposes has been removed.
The four Zircalov assemblies have been in the reactor for three cycles : and were j
-discharged during the current Cycle -15 refueling. outage.
Since the. exemption is no longer-required, : this' provision is no longer appropriate for 'the Technical Specifications.
What is being proposed for addition to Section 5.3.1-is the option. to insert into each fuel rod location either Type-304 stainless steel clad fuel rods-or solid Type 304 stainless steel filler rods.
.These options - would require justification by. cycle-specific reload analyses using an NRC-approved methodology.
Should more than 30 rods in the core.or 10 rods in any-assembly be replaced per refueling, a special report describing the number of rods
~
replaced shall be submitted to the NRC within 30 days after cycle :startup.
Since the Cycle 15 refueling outage reconstitution involved the usel of. only two filler rods., a special report is not required._ However, the revised Cycle 16 TRSCO provides a description.of the reconstitution activities.
When these proposed changes were. originally _ submitted by CYAPC0 in the November 22, 1989 letter, a third option of open water channels: was proposed for fuel rod locations.
That option has been dropped and.ist not ' included in -
this request.
4 Sicnificant Hazards Consideration p
In accordance with 10CFR50.92, CYAPC0 has - reviewed the attached ' proposed changes (Attachment No. 2).and has concluded that they do not - involve a l-l significant hazards consideration.
The basis for-this conclusion is that the I
three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised.
The proposed changes do?
not involve a significant hazards consideration because'the changes would not:
l 1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence; or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
Section 5.3.1 for fuel assemblies will now allow fuel rod locations to be filled with solid steel rods such as those used in reconstitution.
Since l
the changes due to reconstitution or work during any refueling outage will be evaluated for impact on the safety analyses and reported in the TRSCO, the additional flexibility allowed by the changes.-to the Design Features Section has no impact on the design basis accidents.
The proposed changes do not impact plant operation or-the performance of 'any safety ' system.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of any accident or malfunction of ~ any safety-related equipment.
I l
i '
.n.=
l 1
f a
l I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13520\\Page 4 May 9, 1990 2.
Create the possibility of a. new or different kind of accident from -any previously evaluated.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different-type than-any evaluated previously in the Safety Analysis Report is not created.
.Since there.are no changes in the way the' plant is operated, the poten-
- tial for an unanalyzed accident is not created.
No new failure modes are-introduced.
3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The pro)osed changes do not have any adverse-impact-on the' protective boundar'es.
The -margin of safety, as defined in. the basis for any Technical Specification, is not reduced.
The proposed changes do not adversely -impacts any of the safety systems, nor do they increase the number of challenges to the -safety systems.
.Since changes due to the reconstitution were,'and in the future would be, fully evaluated prior to return to operation, the extra flexibility allowed by the proposed changes has no impact' on any design. basis accident.
For these reasons,
.the changes do not--involve a reduction in the margin of. safety.
i The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards in 10CFR50.92' by providing certain examples (51FR 7751, March 6,1986) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve a t
significant hazards consideration.
The changes proposed herein are not enveloped by a specific example.. As described above, the proposed changes do not constitute a significant hazards consideration since the I
proposed changes allow the option of using solid: steel rods in place of fuel rods, and this would be evaluated to assure that there is no impact on the safety analyses.
Based'upon the information contained.in this submittal and the environmental assessment for the Haddam Neck Plant, there are no significant radiological or nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed action, and the proposed license amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of th human environment.
The Haddam Neck Plant Nuclear Review ' Board has reviewed and approved the proposed changes and has concurred in the above determination.
In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b), CYAPC0 is providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this amendment request.
Regarding our proposed schedule for this amendment, we request issuance of this amendment by June 20, 1990 to support startup from our current refueling
- outage, i
,-.v
f.
u
[g y
_t i
fi 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13520\\Page 5 May 9, 1990-l 1
We trust you will-find this information satisfactory and we remain available-to discuss this with you at your convenience.
Very truly yours, jl CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY kbbe E. J. MFoytka
(/
Vice President-cc:
T. T. Martin,-Region I Administrator A. B.- Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant
{
J. T. Shedlosky,' Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck. Plant 1
Mr.'Kevin McCarthy Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06116 STATE OF CONNECTICUT)
) ss. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD )
Then personally appeared before me, E. J. Mroczka, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President -of Connecticut Yankee Atomic-Power Company, a Licensee herein, that. he is authorized to-execute and _ file. the j
foregoing information in the name and on behalf of the Licensee herein, :and i
that the statements contained in said-information are_true an'd correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.
1 bSNl 11 Notary Public a
l My CcmmisenEq9eewh 31,1955 1
1
i
- . =
7
. Docket No. 50-213
'B13520 r
i
' Attachment No. 1 Haddam Neck Plant-Revised. Technical Report Supporting' Cycle Operations m
b e
(
i l-i r
E May 1990 i
e
,r
+
m b-+