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 (l$::.=::.

3 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:: -

By application dated December 29, 1975, Yankee Atomic Electric Company .i :: 5 (the licensee) proposed changes to the restrictions relating to the [i.5 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 Rowe with Core XII is consistent with our previous conclusions. (our Safety iCl.El Evaluation dated September 11, 1975). The lowering of the allowable Nl55 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 page 54a since it refers to the flux peaking augmentation factor which _ , _ , _Zl 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 . - , - -