ML20150E897

Application for Amend to License DPR-36,consisting of Proposed Change 141,revising Tech Specs to Reflect Cycle 11 Operation.Cycle 11 Core Performance Analysis Rept Encl.Fee Paid

ML20150E897
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	06/30/1988
From:	Randazza J Maine Yankee
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20150E900	List: ML20150E897 ML20150E902 ML20150E906
References
MN-88-67, NUDOCS 8807180043
Download: ML20150E897 (8)

Text

' '

- MaineYankee REttABLE ELECTRtCITY FOR MAINE SINCE 1972 EDISON ORIVE . AUGUSTA. MAINE 04330 .(207) 622 4868 10CFR50.90 June 30, 1988 HN-88-67 Proposed Change #141 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Hashington, D. C. 20555

References:

(a) License No. DPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)

(b) HYAPCo Letter to USNRC dated March 24,19% (HN-88-30)

Proposed Change #138 - Fuel Enrichmen*, Limit (c) USNRC Letter to HYAPCo dated June T.3, 1988, Amdenment No. 105

Subject:

Proposed Change #141 - Cycle 11 Technical Specifications Gentlemen:

Maine Yankee's eleventh operating cycle is expected to begin as early as December 10, 1988. In stpport of Cycle 11 operation, the following documentation is being rubmitted for your review and approval.

Attachment A: Description of Proposed Changes and Significant Hazards Evaluation for Cycle 11 B: Summary Description of Cycle 11 Technical Specification Changes C: Proposed Cycle 11 Technical Specification Changes 0: Cycle 11 Core Performance Analysis Report (CPAR)

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.90, Maine Yankee proposes several changes to Technical Specifications which reflect the operating parameters for Cycle 11.

These changes are as follows:

Replace Page 2.2-1 of Specification 2.2 with the enclosed revised page, go I

'I g /chec k(UO 0123L-RPJ 8807180043 p

DR 88063o ADOCK 05000309 g3( M PDC

a MaineYankee United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two Attention: Document Control Desk HN-88-67

~'

Replace the Pages 3.10-2 through 3.10-5 and the Figures on Pages 3.10-9, 3.10-12, 3.10-13, and 3.10-15 of Specification 3.10 with the enclosed revised pages.

Delete Figure 3.10-8 on Page ?.10-16 of' Specification 3.10.

Replace the Figures on Prges 3.10-17 through 3.10-20 of Specification 3.10 with the enclosed renumbered pages 3.10-16 through 3.10-19.

A table which summart W the changes is provided in Attachment B.

In addition, an increase in the maximum nominal fuel enrichment in the reactor from 3.5 to 3.7 weight percent U-235 is required for Cycle 11 operation. This change was submitted in Proposed Change #138, "Fuel Enrichment Limit", Reference (b) and approved via Amendment No. 105, Reference (c). The Cycle 11 Core Performance Analysis Report (CPAR),

Attachment D, demonstrates that the core design with 3.7 weight percent U-235 meets the appropriate safety limits for Cycle 11.

Maine Yankee is also currently assessing the impact of the removal of the remaining four CEA plugs from the Cycle 11 core design. These CEA plugs reside in the core for the purpose of maintaining the same hydraulic characteristics as provided by the previously utilized part length CEAs. The CEA plugs do not provide reactivity control to the core. The impact of removal is expected to be negligible on both the core design and safety analyses. Maine Yankee will notify the NRC if the assessment of the CEA plug removal modifies any of the results presented in this submittal.

The Cycle 11 Core Performance Analysis Report presents the core design and the results of the design analysi for Cycle 11. These include core fuel loading, fuel description, reacto. power distributions, control rod worths, reactivity coefficients, the results of the safety analyses performed to define and justify plant operational limits, and the Reactor Protective System

'9PS) setpoints assumed in the safety analysis. The startup test program for ycle 11 is also described in the report. The analysis results, in conjunction with the startup test results, RPS setpoints and Technical Specifications, serve as a basis for ensuring safe operation of Haine Yankee during Cycle 11.

Maine Yankee has evaluated the proposed changes and has determined that they do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; increase the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92. The evaluation is included in Attachment A.

0123L-RPJ

MaineYankee United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Three Attention: Document Control Desk HN-88-67 The proposed change has been reviewed by the Plant Operations and Review Committee and the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee. The Plant Operations and Review Committee has concluded that the proposed Technical Specification changes do not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

An application fee of $150.00 is enclosed in accordance with 10 CFR 170.12.

A State of Maine representative is being notified of this proposed change by a copy of this letter.

Very truly yours, HAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

=

John B. Randazza President JBR/bjp Attachments: A: Description of Proposed Changes and Significant Hazards Evaluation B: Summary of Cycle 11 Technical Specification Changes C: Proposed Cycle 11 Technical Specifications D: Cycle 11 Core Performance Analysis Report cc: Mr. Richard H. Hessman Mr. Hilliam T. Russell Mr. Cornelius F. Holden Mr. Pat Sears Mr. Clough Toppan STATE OF HAINE Then personally appeared before me, John B. Randazza, who being duly sworn did state that he is President of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing request in the name and on behalf of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, and that the statements

, therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

OR A tj g blic Janl:Fshe 0123L-RPJ

MaineYankee ATTACHMENT A Significant Hazards Evaluation

\

0123L-RPJ

MaineYankee Descriotion of Prooosed'Changa The proposed changes provided in Attachment C would modify the Technical Specifications to reflect the operating limits for the Cycle 11 reload core.

Significant Hazards Evaluation The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for the Cycle 11 operation of the Maine Yankee plant have been evaluated against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92' and have been determined to not involve a significant hazards consideration. These proposed changes do not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.

The Cycle 11 refueling will involve the discharge of 73 fuel assemblies and insertion of.72 new assemblies and one previously irradiated assembly. The new fuel assemblies are fabricated by Combustion Engineering and are not significantly different from those previously used at Maine Yankee. In previous reload cores at Maine Yankee and other facilities, the NRC has found the fuel design to be acceptable. The Control Element Assembly (CEA) pattern for Cycle 11 is identical to that used in Cycle 10. Also, the thermal, thermal-hydraulic, and physics characteristics for Cycle 11 are not significantly different from those of Cycle 10. These changes are described in detail in Attachment D. Therefore, these proposed changes which support the operation of Maine Yankee for Cycle 11 do not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

The Cycle 11 design has been evaluated to demonstrate the acceptability of events previously evaluated in the Maine Yankee Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The acceptance criteria for the evaluation are identical to those which were employed for Cycle 10.

Furthermore, the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance of the Cycle 11 design are identical to those used in Cycle 10.

Section 5 of the analysis in Attachment D summarizes the effects of Cycle 11 operation on the consequence of accidents previously evaluated in the Maine Yankee FSAR.

For these transients where the parameters for Cycle 11 are not bounded by previous safety analyses, a new or revised analysis was performed. These transients are:

1) Boron Dilution i 2) Excess Load b

i 0123L-RPJ

{

m MaineYankee Other transients that required a partial reanalysis or review included:

1) Seized RCP P aor

2) CEA Hithdre.wal

3) Loss of Foedwater

4) Loss of Coolant Flow

5) Steam Line Rupture

6) Steam Generator Tube Rupture

7) LOCA

8) CEA Orop

9) Loss of Load

10) CEA Ejection In each case the reanalysis demonstrateo that the applicable acceptance criteria for the accident or transient continue to be met, (see Table 5.3 of Attachment D). For the remaining transients, the parameters were bounded by previous safety analyses and therefore are not adversely affected by the reload.

Additional information regarding the effect of the proposed Technical Specification changes is found in Section 5 of the Cycle 11 CPAR (Attachment 0).

In summary, our evaluation of accidents previously analyzed in the FSAR has demonstrated that all applicable acceptance criteria continue to be met. Therefore, the propued Technical Specification changes for Cycle 11 operation do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously eva?uated.

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

As indicated in Item 1 above and the Cycle 11 CPAR, the reload core for Cycle 11 operation is similar in fuel design, CEA placement, thermal, thermal-hydraulic, and physics characteristics to that of Cycle 10. He have concluded that Cycle 11 operation does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

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

As indicated in Item 1 above, and the Cycle 11 CPAR, the design of Cycle 11 is similar to Cycle 10. The methods used to analyze Cycle 11 operation are the same as were used for Cycle 10 and they have been previously approved by the NRC staff. Additionally, the acceptance criteria for Cycle 11 are the same as Cycle 10. He have demonstrated that these acceptance criteria continue to be met. He  ;

nave therefore concluded that Cycle 11 operation does not involve any significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Maine Yankee has concluded that the proposed changes to Technical Specifications do not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92.

0123L-RPJ

~

MaineYankee ATTACHMENT B Sumiry Description of Cycle 11 Technical Specification Changes l

l 0123L-RPJ

l .

Item Technical

_ Max Speci fication Qgictiotion of Change Feason for Chance

1. 2.2 a) Steady-state peak linear a) Reflects Cycle 11 Specified ,

heat rates modified and Acceptable Fuel Design Limits wording improved. (SAFDL) for prevention of centerline melting (Section 3.2.2 of YAEC-1648) and wording changes for clarification.

2. 3.10 a) Technical Speciff cation a) Reflects Cycle 11 LOCA pages 3.10-2, 3.10.C.2.2.1 arS Analysis results 3.10-3, 3.10-4, 3.10.2.2.2 modified (Section 5.5.5.2.3 of 3.10-5, 3.10-9, YkEC-1648) 3.10-11, 3.10-12, 3.10-15, through b) Technical Specification b) Reflects Cycle 11 power 3.10-20 3.10.C.3.1.1 modified distributions and RPS setpoints.

c) Figure 3.10-1 modified c) Reflects Cycle 11 CEA insertion limit (Section 4.9.1 of YAEC-1648) d) Figure 3.10-4 modified d) Reflects Cycle 11 radial peaking (Section 4.3 of YAEC-1648) e) Figure 3.10-5 modified e) Reflects Cycle 11 power distributions and RPS setpoints f) Figure 3.10-7 modified f) Reflects increase in shutdown margin required by Cycle 11 analyses (Section 5 of YAEC-1648) g) Figure 3.10-8 deleted g) Cycle 11 calculations were performed with this restriction removed and justify its deletion.

(Section 5 of YAEC-1648).

h) Pages 3.10-2, 3.10-5, and h) Revisions to provide Figures 3.10-9 through consistency with the 3.10-12 revised deletion of Figure 3.10-8.

0123L-RPJ m_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _