ML20138C839

Corrected Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 88 to License DPR-3

ML20138C839
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	11/27/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20138C713	List: ML20138C708 ML20138C773 ML20138C815 ML20138C839
References
NUDOCS 8512130100
Download: ML20138C839 (4)

Text

b l [e no 9g UNITED STATES i O' o- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, $ , WASHINGTON. Q. C. 20555 6

\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 88 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3

' YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

, YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-29 I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated August 30, 1985, the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) i submitted a request for changes to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station

!. Technical Specifications (TS).

5-

! The amendment modifies the TS to (1) correct typographical errors; (2) remove

! reference to three loop operation; (3) modify the Safety Injection Actuation Signal (SIAS) setpoint; (4) revise the Linear Heat Generation Rate (LHGR) limit; (5) revise the control-rod-motion-related peaking multipliers that i are applied to measured LHGR for comparison to the Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) limit; (6) modify the method from combining the independent .

- uncertainty factors applied to the measured LHGR; and (7) revise the

, maximum allowable core inlet temperature.

f A Notice of Conr.deration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed

! No Significant riazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for

, Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal

!: Register on October 23,' 1985 (50 FR 43036). No comments or requests for I hearing were received.

__ 2.0 EVALUATION 6

i The staff has, evaluated the individual TS changes needed for cycle IS I operation at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Yankee). The evaluation

! of each of the changes follows:

In order to be consistent with the assumptions 2.1 TS 3.1.1.2, page 3/4 1-2a:

of the revised steamline break analysis to support the 5'F increase in the core inlet temperature, the shutdown margin is changed from "490*F 5 T 5 515'F Shutdown Margin 2 6%ak/k for T = 515*F" to "490*F 5 T S$7AdownMargin2.6%ak/kforT"YRestaffhasreviewedthisanalysisand=51 for steamline break analysis.

finds this TS change acceptable.

l 2.2 TS 4.2.1.2.b, page 3/4 2-2: A new axial shape LHGR curve was selected f

for the LOCA analysis; the new topskewed curve is given in Figure 9-1 of l YAEC-1496. The licensee demonstrated in the LOCA analysis for fycle XVIII i that the peak clad temperature calculated with this new curve bound both

! those calculated with the nominal and bottom peaked curves which were used in the previous reload analyses. The staff found this acceptable.

e512130100 PDR ADOCK h $$$29 PDR

_ ___._P __ _ . . . . .. .__

f

!I Because of this new curve, the licensee proposed the removal of.the 3F factor, which was intended to account for the power shift to the bottom of the core

- due to control rod insertion in full power operation. Because the F factor was covered by the new bounding curve, we conclude that the removal o,f the F y factor is acceptable.

2.3 TS 4.2.1.2.h, page 3/4 2-3: First, the phrase " Core average linear heat generation rate at full power, 4.417 kW/ft" is changed to " Core average linear

'l heat generation rate at full power" to avoid changes in the TS due to the insertion of inert rods in some assemblies. This parameter has minor

, importance in the overall analysis. Second, the factors d, e and f will be combined statistically as the " root-sum-square" of the individual parameters.

!1 The statistical combination of independent uncertainty parameters has been

} evaluated and found acceptable for licensing applications for Yankee. These

j changes are, therefore, acceptable.

!i L 2.4 Figure 3.2-1, page 3/4 2-4: The LOCA limits have been recalculated. The

i new figure includes the limits for Exxon irradiated fuel and CE fresh fuel.

. The staff has reviewed the licensee's calculations and computational methods, and finds them acceptable. The change is, therefore, acceptable.

!f -

t 2.5 Fiaure 3.2-2, page 3/4 2-5: This F figure is deleted for the same reason

! as in section 2.2. Thechangeisaccepf.able. .

': 2.6 Figure 3.2-3; page */4 2-6: The new curve of xenon redistribution

!i reflects the use of a top peaked axial power shape. The use of the top -

.1 peaked axt:1 power shape is discussed in section 2.2 above, has been evaluated il by the staff during the -eview of the reload analysis and been found

j= acceptabit for LOCA calculations. The staff then reviewed the new xenon

distribution curves based on the new shapes, and found the new xenon curves.

acceptable.

J 2.7 Figure 3.2-4, page 3/4 2-7: The horizontal axis depicting the exposure  :

range is slightly expanded to beyond 16 GWD/MTU burnup. The analysis forming '

the basis was carried out to 18 GWD/MTU burnup, and the change includes more  ;

of the analysis results in the TS curve. The change is, therefore, acceptable.

2.8 TS 3.2.4a, page 3/4 2-12: The phase " Main Coolant System Inlet Temperature" is changed to " Highest Operating Loop Cold Leg Temperature" to have the TS terminology be consistent with the core safety limit of TS 2.1.1. Use of the highest, instead of.any, loop inlet temperature is the most limiting case.

The change is, therefore, acceptable.

2.9 Table 3.-1, pa2e 3/4 2-13: First, the phrase " Main Coolant System Inlet ,

Temperature 5 515";" is changed to " Operating Loop Cold Leg Temperature 5 520*F".

The change was requested to accommodate changing plant operating conditions during different seasons. The increase in core inlet temperature has been incorporated into the licensing analysis. The results of the reanalysis have been reviewed and found acceptable. This TS change is, therefore, acceptable.

Second, the limits for "3 Loops in Operation" are deleted because three-loop operation is not allowed for Yankee. Removal of this reference to three loop operation will make the TS consistent with the allowed operating conditions at Yankee which requires four loops for power operation. These

, changes are, therefore, acceptable.

+,,--,---.-,w- ,-v.- ,---r -,-w e - w v- - .--,--#+ ,w----++-+e...r---* +-,*,-----ev--,

4 E

o l

-3 t

2.10 Table 3.3-3 page 3/4 3-14: The trip setpoints for Low Main Coolant i Pressure Safety Injection Actuation Signal setpoint are changed from "1700 psig" to "1650 psig" in order to avoid inadvertent safety injection actuations on -

reactor trips. This change has been considered in the LOCA and steamline break ,

i analyses. The results of the rea.ialysis have been reviewed and found acceptable.

l These TS changes are, therefore, acceptable.

l 2.11 TS 3.9.1, pace 3/4 9-1: The phrase "0.93 or less, which includes a 2% Ak/k conservative allowance for uncertainties" is changed to "0.93 calculated or i less". This change is acceptable since the limiting condition for operation j (LCO) provides a. limit which includes the uncertainity, and the statement of the uncertainty itself is unnecessary in the LC0; however, any change in the j value of the uncertainty used in this analysis will require prior staff , l approval.

t 1

' 2.12 Bases 3/4.1.1, pace 83/4 1-1: Two phrases "2 6% Ak/k at T = 515'F and I

"2 5% Ak/k at T =330"F"aredeletedfromthebasesbecausefUsevalues  !

l! _ arealreadyspelWiedin3.1.1.1.2. These changes only affect the bases, 1l do not affect any LCO or surveillance requirements, are correct and are, l 4- therefore, acceptable.

!* 2.13 Bases 3/4.2.1, pace B3/4 2-1: A paragraph has been added to explain the basis for the xenon-incuced power redistribution. The basis is consistent

with the analysis bases discussed in section 2.6. The change is, therefore, .

'v acceptable. l 4 .

'!; 2.14 Bases 3/4.2.1, pac e 83/4 2-2: A paragrapt is added to explain the statistical

,: combination of indepencent uncertainty parameters as discussed in Section 2.3.

!j= The bases change is consistent with the technical basis presented in Sectiort

'; 2.3. The change is, therefore, acceptable. ,

~

~~

2.15 Bases 3/4.2.2 and 3/4.2.3 page 83/4 2-2: The word "ethalpy" is correct'ed to  !

l1 be "enthalpy". The change corrects a typographical error, and therefore is i

acceptable. ,

!" 2.16 Bases 3/4.2.2 and 3/4.2.3, pace 83/4 2-3: A portion of the first paragraph '

j. is deleted in order to be consistent with current specifications. The change modified the bases only, is correct and does not affect any LCO or survalliance

requirements,andfis,therefore, acceptable.

2.17 Bases 3/4.2.4, pace 3/4 2-3

The temperature "$19'F" is deleted because it

! contributes no additional information to the bases. The bases still includes

! the reason for the' analysis limit for core inlet temperature for DN8

calculations. The change is, therefore, acceptable.

l

{ 2.18 Bases 3/4.2.4, pace B3/4 2-4: First, a phrase "for the Exxon fuel" is added l

to reflect the rod bow penalty for Exxon fuel. This provides explanatory i

! information to provide a reference for the penalty, and does not change LCO or surveillance requirements. The change is, therefore, accept &1e. Second, 3

the phrase "... minimum DNBR in excess of 2.05. Thus, 36.6% margin...." is i changed to "...rinimus DN8R in excess of 1.82. Thus, 27.8% margin...." to be consistent with the Exxon fuel analysis. These changes are consistent with j the refueling analysis, which has been reviewed and found to be acceptable,

j. and are, therefore, acceptable.

J I

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

l

i i

? ,. -

t -

! s i

2.19 TS 5.3.1, pace 5-1: The phrase "similar in physical design to Core XVI Exxon fuel" is changed to "similar in physical design to current fuel" to eliminate unnecessary reference to specific cycle and specific fuel vendor.

The change is administrative, does not change LCO or surveillance requirements, is correct and is, therefore, acceptable.

+

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

, This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the

! installation or use of facility components located within the restricted L area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance I requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no

.; - significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant j increase in~ individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The

.g. Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public j lg coseent on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant

' " ~

to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

E i The staff has concluded,' based on the considerations discussed above, that:

l (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public

,i will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations

'* and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common '

defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

S.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributors: ,

S. L Wu, R. Jones and J. Clifford

!! Dated: November 27, 1985

1 li:* -

O 9

i 4

i

'I

, , , , . . . _ - . . ._ . _ , . . _ _ _ , , _ , . _ _ , _ . _ - . _ - . _ . . , . , _ , , , _ , _ _ , _ _ . , . , , , . , , . , . _ , , . . . , , , _ _ - , , _ _ ,