ML20151A593

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 22 to License DPR-3

ML20151A593
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	01/20/1976
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20151A587	List: ML20151A584 ML20151A589 ML20151A593 ML20151A596
References
NUDOCS 8011030799
Download: ML20151A593 (2)

Text

_ __

(

~::'

[

.:= -

9i...j.

=:==;

.;^;;;;):-

=~

SAFETY EVALUATION BY ' DIE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION '

h 3

(l$::.=::.

SUPPORTING A!CENDMEh"1 NO. 2 2 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 ffi _ i YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

("

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION (YANKEE-ROP'al P

DOCKET NO. 50-29

. ;;;. ~

7.:.

Introduction

[ =-

v::

[i.5 By application dated December 29, 1975, Yankee Atomic Electric Company

.i :: 5 (the licensee) proposed changes to the restrictions relating to the allowable fraction of full power in the Technical Specifications appended j:f " -

to License No. DPR-3 for the Yankee-Rowe reactor.

g-jf lE:'

Dis cussion

[

~

r Presently, Section D.2.c in the Technical Specifications includes limits k=

on the peak Linear lleat Generation Rate (UlGR) as a function of fuel

{

exposure (Figure 8-1) and specifies the allowabic fraction of full power

.. -.a for operation of Yankee-Rowe with Core XII. For determining the allowablo

~

fraction of full power, Section D.2.c requires that specific uncertainty penalties be used for the full power LEGR, including a flux peaking aug-contation factor in accordance with Tabic 8-4 in Section D.2.c.

In their December 29, 1975 submittal, the licensee pointed out that Figure S-1 (c11owabic peak UlGR versus fuel exposure) has a constant flux peaking augrentation factor added on top of the UlGR (kW/ft) values.

However, the allowable power level is required to be determined using a flux peaking augmentation factor that varies with control rod bank post-j tion in accordance with Table 8-4 in Section D.2.c.

To clininate this 1

inconsistent application of flux peaking augmentation factors, the

~

licensee has proposed to lower the allowable peak IllGR - kt1/ft values in Figurc 8-1 by a constant amount equivalent to the value of the flux peaking augnentation factor that was included initially in Figure 8-1.

The licensee also proposed that the flux peaking augaontation factor, p

includine Figure S-4 be renoved from Section D.2.c for determining the allowable fraction of full power.

}.}

o r c *

(..

avana-s

• Dart h Inm AEC 318 mev. 9 5 3) A.ECM 0244 W u. s; oovannusar Psuntino orricss sen.sa no y-

~~~T:

=====.

(=;: =$

g::

2-M===

192.===

$5=:

Evaluation

. g[

We have previously concluded (our Safety Evaluation dated December 4, 1975) that the technica1 ' specification limits for the UlGR (Section D.2.c)

EE= ~

-assures operation of Yankee-Rowe with Core XII in compliance with 10 CFR

.". 7 Part 50, 850.46.

Q The Core XII ECCS perfomance analysis was done by Exxon Nuclear Company, c ;

Inc. (ENC) with an ENC evaluation model which we found to be acceptable, p T; With respect to the core physics methods used as input to the 1.0CA E

analysis, we have previously approved (our Safety Evaluation dated EM September 11, 1975) ENC's Report XN-75-43, " Core Physics Methods and

... =.. _.

Data Used as Input to LOCA Analysis", which. demonstrated generically QS tnt power spikes caused by fuel densification need not be considered f=..

in the ENC LOCA analysis.

Based on our review of the licensee's submittal

- ;=::& -

we find that removal. of consideration of the flux peaking augmentation gym factor for determining the allowable power level for operation of Yankee-55i5 iCl.El Rowe with Core XII is consistent with our previous conclusions. (our Safety Nl55 Evaluation dated September 11, 1975). The lowering of the allowable peak UlGR (kW/ft) in Table 8-1 in conjunction with the removal of the

..:6.~

flux penking augmentation factor, ites D.2.c.(d) and Figure 8-4 from the

J Technical Specifications, will provide an increased safety margin for

==q detemining the allowable fraction of full power. Pursuant to discussions with the licensee, we have deleted part of the first sentence on proposed

_, _, _Z page 54a since it refers to the flux peaking augmentation factor which has been renoved. Wo have concluded that the changes proposed in the

~ ].;

licensee's December 29, 1975 submittal, as modified by us, are acceptable.

We have 'detornined that the amendment does not authorize a change in l

effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will 4

not result in any significant environmental impact. Having nado this deter-ninntion, we have further concluded that the amendnent involves on action

=

which is insignificant from the standpoirt of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4) that an environmental statement, negative declaration, or environcental impact appraisal need not be prepared in 9

connection with the issuance of this amendment.

Conclusion a=i

sr We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

~'

(1) because the change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety nargin, the change does

t. #

not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered

.==

by operation in the proposed canner, and (3) such activities will be con-

.an duc.ed in ev giiance wita se >;o wission s :agulatioas an. de issuanco

~

o,nces this.anandnent will not.,bo.jnj.nical_to_tr c_conmon defe Tso. and securi ty.

or "o the health and safety of the public.

s u a a a = s *-

_.~._

.. ~ _..

__..4. _ _ _.

oASN' I _,..

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

f ona AIC 318 (Rev,9.$)) A1CM 0240 W u. e. novran uant ent=mes ornc as t e74.sae-t es

.,e.es.

6 4

e g

2

, - -