ML20082B117

Application for Amend to License NPF-49,incorporating Change to Fq Surveillances to Account for Changes in Fq Which Can Exceed 2%

ML20082B117
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/29/1995
From:	Opeka J NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20082B118	List: B15155, Proposed Tech Specs,Incorporating Change to Fq Surveillances to Account for Changes in Fq Which Can Exceed 2% ML20082B117
References
B15155, NUDOCS 9504050022
Download: ML20082B117 (7)

Text

_

• ~

g: 107 Selden Street, Berlin, C1' 06037 - ,l

.e -

Utilities System : Northeast Utilitice service company. -

/.

, - P.O. Box 270 liartford, CT 06141-0270 -[

(203) 665-5000 t

e March 29, 1995-  ;

Docket No. 50-423 f B15155 i

I Re: 10CFR50.90 i

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission <

' Attention: Document Control Desk l Washington, DC'20555 ,

Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 '?

Proposed. Revision to Technical Specifications Li Power Distribution' Limits - Chance to FJ2) Surveillanca i Introduction .;

Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) {

hereby proposes to amend its Operating License, NPF-49, by incorporating changes identified in Attachments 1 and 2 into'the i Technical Specifications of Millstone Unit No. 3. The purpose of l the proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements 4.2.2.1.2.e,  ;

4. 2. 2.1. 4 . e , 4 . 2 . 2. 2. 2. e and 4. 2 . 2 . 2 . 4 . e is to incorporate changes l to the Fg surveillances which account for changes in Fo which-can- i exceed 2 percent. The result of the change will move the  ;

surveillance penalty from the Technical Specifications to the Core ,

Operating Limits Report (COLR). The proposed changes to Action a. 1 of Specifications 3.2.2.1~ and 3.2.2.2' are , administrative. In .!

addition, Specification 6'.9.1.6.b, item 5 is being revised to  !

incorporate the' approved version of WCAP-10216-P, Revision 1.  ;

Background

In a letter dated October' 29, 1993, Westinghouse submitted a revision to Topical Report WCAP-10216-P, " Relaxation of Constant l Axial Offset Control - Fg Surveillance Technical Specification" for l NRC Review.

The report describes an NRC-approved methodology developed by Westinghouse for performing power distribution control. in Westinghouse-type pressurized water reactors (PWRs). The proposed

. revision accounts for Fo increases greater than 2 percent , between measurements to enhance the existing surveillance-methodology. In a letter dated November 26, 1993, the NRC stated that the report was acceptable for referencing in license applications. The Staff's safety evaluation concluded:

040117

" 4 m 1**

9504050022 950329 I )~s )

PDR ADOCK 05000423 "

l '

P - PDR m l

3..

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B15155/Page 2 March 29, 1995 "The proposed revisions to the Fg Surveillance- Technical Specification in those reactors using CAOC or RAOC for power distribution control are' acceptable. These revisions would allow the incorporation of a larger penalty to account for Fg (Z) increases greater than 2 percent measurements.- These penalties may be incorporated in either the plant PFLR or COLR, as described above, and will be calculated with NRC-approved methods. The approved version of WCAP-10216-P, Rev. 1 must be included in the

~ Administrative Reporting Requirements Section of the TS for those plants incorporating the penalty factor in the COLR. Also TS Surveillance 4.2.2.2.e.1 must be modified to reflect inclusion of this parameter in the PFLR or COLR."

The Cycle 6 design for Millstone Unit No. 3 is a low-leakage pattern, employing several thousand burnable absorbers, with a cycle length of approximately 24 months. It is expected that the Millstone Unit No. 3 core may experience increases in Fg (Z) greater than 2 percent between monthly flux maps. This approved-Westinghouse Topical Report is being used for calculating the Millstone Unit No. 3 Cycle 6 core power distribution limits.

Consistent with the NRC's recommendation, NNECO is proposing to revise the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications by referencing the revised version of WCAP-10216 in Specification 6.9.1.6.b and to move the 2% penalty requirement from the Technical Specifications to the Millstone Unit No. 3 COLR.

Description of the~ Proposed Changes NNECO proposes to revise the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications as follows:

1. Section 3/4.2.2. Heat Flux Hot Channel Factor - Fe (Z)

The proposed changes to Action a of Specifications 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2 involve . deletion of the words " perform one of the following actions" and addition of words "or" between the three options provided by the action statement. These changes .

are purely administrative. Surveillance- Requirements  ;

4. 2. 2.1. 2. e, 4. 2. 2.1. 4. e, 4. 2. 2. 2. 2. e and 4. 2. 2. 2. 4. e require that when performing the surveillance, if the ratio Fg"(Z)/K(Z) has increased since the previous surveillance, then_ the technical specifications will allow two options: either the current Fg"(Z) must be increased by an additional 2 percent to account for further increase in F9 "(Z) before the next surveillance or the surveillance period must be reduced to every seven days. The Cycle 6 and future cycle design for Millstone Unit No. 3 plan to utilize a low-leakage pattern, employing large number of burnable absorbers, with a cycle j length of approximately 24 months. It is expected that future

-. - : . . . - - .- - - - .- .- ~ .~. _. .-

'k '

~

.y m y t..

.Uis. Nuclear Regulatory:Conmission

'B15155/Page 3:

March 29,11995  !

4 cycles of'the Millstone Unit No.'3. core may experience an i increase' in . Pg(Z) greater than two; percent between monthly ,

flux maps. Generic Letter.88-16, dated October 4, 1988,,was j 0' issued to: encourage licensees to prepara changes to Technical j Specifications related.to cycle-specific parameters. In a.  !

letter dated June 13, 1990, m the - NRC_ . approved . a license -i

. amendment for Millstone Unit No. 3 which relocated certainL  :

cycle-specific operating limits to the COLR. Currently, each  :

parameter' limit proposed in the.COLR utilizes the approved methodologies identified in the Administrative Control Section j of the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications. :NNECO '

is proposing to include the penalty in the COLR instead of the~ l Technical Specifications. This is also consistent with the recommendations of Generic Letter 88-16 and the NRC's Safety  !

Evaluation for WCAP-10216-P Revision 1.

2. Section 6.9.1.6.b Section 6.9.1.6.b, item 5 is being revised to incorporate the j approved version of WCAP-10216-P, Revision 1. '

.i Safety Assessment -j The proposed changes to the action statements of Section 3.2.2.1 'l and 3.2.2.2 are purely administrative and therefore, they do not  :

L ' adversely impact the consequences or probability of any accident-previously' analyzed.

The heat flux hot channel factor Fo(Z), . is the maximum local heat flux on the surface of a fuel' rod at core elevation Z, divided by 3 the average fuel rod heat flux. For the plants using constant _

axial offset control (CAOC) or relaxed axial offset control (RAOC)  !

during normal operation, Fo(Z) is shown to be within limits by -1 performing periodic measurements. The technical, specifications j take into account the possibility that Fo(Z) may increase between .j surveillances. Surveillance Requirements 4.2.2.1.2.e, 4.2.2.1.4.e, s!

4.2.2.2.2.e and 4.2.2.2.4.e require . that when performing the surveillance, if the ratio Fo"(Z) /K(Z) has increased, since the l previous surveillance, then the technical specifications will allow  :

two options: either the current Fo"(Z) must be increased by an 1 additional 2 percent to account for a further ' increase in Fo"(Z) ,

before the next surveillance, or the surveillance period must be reduced to every seven days.  !

9 i

(1) D. M. Jaffe Letter to E. J. Mroczka, " Issuance of Amendment,"-

dated June 13, 1990.

I

. , , . . . , + . - _ .. w ,-..p-- - . . , - -

)

U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission ]

B15155/Page 4 i March 29, 1995 l l

percent was based on the Westinghouse The Fg"( Z) penalty assumption that Fg"(ofZ). 2would change by no more than 2 percent  !

. between monthly flux maps. This assumption was based upon-calculations for core designs which pre-date the low-leakage '

patterns, the use of large amounts of burnable absorbers, and long  ;

fuel cycles. Recently, some Westinghouse-designed cores have  !

experienced increases in Fg"(Z) as high as 5 to 6 percent between '

monthly measurements over certain burnups. The cycle 6 design ^for .

Millstone Unit No. 3 is a low-leakage pattern, employing several thousand burnable absorbers, with a cycle length of approximately 24 months. 1 l

The approved Westinghouse methodology <2 now predicts such l occurrences during the cycle design process. It does so by evaluating the maximum change in Fo (Z) at small burnup intervals over the entire cycle. At each such interval any amount of penalty necessary to accommodate pr-3dicated changes in Fg" which are in 3 excess of the traditional 2 percent are calculated and accommodated  ;

in the analysis and will be included in the core operating limit l report (COLR). NNECO is proposing to include these penalties in I the COLR instead of the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements 4.2.2.1.2.e, 4.2.2.1.4.e, 4.2.2.2.2.e, and 4.2.2.2.4.e reflect the above concept. The i nominal value of the penalty will remain 2 percent and will be applied as in the current surveillance. Any excess penalty will be i either built into W(Z) 's or provided in tabular form and applied as allowed in the approved Westinghouse methodology. Technical Speci'fication .Section 6.9.1.6.b, item 5 is being revised to incorporate the approved version of WCAP-10216-P, Revision 1.

These changes are consistent with the recommendations of Generic l Letter 88-16. NNECO will be providing the COLR for Cycle 6 i' operation to the NRC per Technical Specification 6.9.1.6.d. Based ,

upon the above, the proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements l 4.2.2.1.2.e, 4.2.2.1.4.e, 4.2.2.2.2.e, and 4.2.2.2.4.e and section 6.9.1.6.b have been shown to ' have no adverse impact on the 4 probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

Sionificant Hazards Consideration  !

NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes in accordance with 10CFR50.92 and concluded that the changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration (SHC). The basis for this (2) A. Thandani (NRC) to N. J. Liparulo (Westinghouse),

" Acceptance for Referencing of Revised Version of Licensing.

Topical Report WCAP-10216-P, Rev. 1, Relaxation of Constant Axial Offset Control -

Fo Surveillance Technical Specifications," dated November 26, 1993.

1

. . . . . _ _ __ - . - . . . .- ~ - , . _ . _ .,

/d.

- i.' 'l e <

U.S. . Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6i B15155/Page.5 March 29, 1995 conclusion is that'the three ~ criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised. The proposed changes do not involve-an SHC because the. changes would not:

1

1. Involve-.a. significant increase in; the probability or ']

consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The proposed changes to the action statements of. Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2 are. purely administrative and therefore )

they do not adversely affect the probability or consequences  ;

of an accident previously analyzed. The proposed changes to Surveillance Requirementa- 4.2.2.1.2.e, 4.2.2.1.4.e, 4.2.2.2.2.e and 4.2.2.2.4.e and Section 6.9.1.6.b are based on the NRC approved methodology for calculatingthe penalty to be l applied to Fg"( Z) . The margin to the Fo hh is sMH l maintained by the proposed changes. In addition, the penalty  ;

is included in the COLR which will be maintained and controlled per the requirements of 10CFR50.59. Therefore, the proposed changes do not~ increase in the probability or j consequences of an accident previously analyzed. . -l

2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

The proposed changes to the Action Statement of Sections  !

3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2 are purely administrative and therefore, i they do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.- The proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements 4.2.2.1.2.e, 4.2.2.1.4.e, 4.2.2.2.2.e and '4. 2. 2. 2. 4. e and Section 6.9.1.6.b do not create a malfunction that is different from those previously evaluated. The changes do not involve positioning reactivity systems or plant components into any new configuration' or sequence not previously analyzed. Therefore, the changes will  !

not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any other previously analyzed.  !

3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. .

The proposed changes to the action statements of Sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2 are purely administrative and therefore ,

they will not reduce the margin of safety. The proposed changes to Surveillance Requirements 4.2.2.1.2.e, 4.2.2.1.4.e, 4.2.2.2.2.e and 4.2.2.2.4.e and Section 6.9.1.6.b do not reduce the margin to the Fq"T" limit. The approved methods more distinctly evaluate expected changes in Fq" than i previously existed. Therefore, there is no impact on the margin of safety as specified in the Technical Specifications.

U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission B15155/Page 6' March 29, 1995- ,

Moreover, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6, 1986, 51FR7751) of amendments that are ,

considered not likely to involve an SHC. The proposed changes are _

not enveloped by any of the examples. However, NNECO has concluded that the proposed changes do not negatively impact the public health or safety, nor do they involve an SHC.

Environmental Considerations NNECO has reviewed the proposed license amendment against the i The criteria of 10CFR51.22 for environmental considerations.

proposed changes do not involve an SHC, do not increase the types and amounts of effluents that may be released offsite, nor j significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational 4 radiation exposures. Based on the foregoing, NNECO concludes that (

the proposed changes meet the criteria delineated in 10CFR51. 22 (c) (9) for a categorical exclusion from the requirements for an environmental impact statement.

Nuclear Safety Assessment Board Review The Nuclear Safety Assessment Board has reviewed and approved this proposed amendment and concurs with the above determination.

State Notification In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b) , we are providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this proposed amendment via facsimile to ensure their awareness of this request.

Schedule for NRC Annroval )

Currently, the next refueling outage is scheduled to begin in I April, 1995, with the startup scheduled for late May 1995.  !

Although the proposed amendment is not required for the startup of the plant or the continued operation of the plant, NNECO requests the NRC Staff to process and issue the proposed amendment at your ,

earliest convenience. NNECO will implement the license amendment I within 60 days of the date of issuance. We will, of course, promptly provide any additional information the Staff may need to respond to this request. '

4.

l n

• .e.

' U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  ;

B15155/Page'7 March 29, 1995 L

! If you should have any questions, please contact Mr. R. G. Joshi at (203) 440-2080.

l Very truly yours, j NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY h , E Cs4 J. F. OpeMa U l

Executive Vice President cc: T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator V. L. Rooney,'NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 P. D. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Mr. Kevin T.A. McCarthy, Director

! Monitoring and Radiation Division Department of Environmental Protection 79 Elm Street P.O. Box 5066 Hartford, CT 06102-5066 l Subscribed and sworn to before me this o27 day of M , 1995-wMC4C Dat commission g ygg*G & r Notary Public jllt Commission Expires December 31,1997 l

l l

l

.-..- . . - - - , , .- - . -