ML20203F125

Application for Amend to License DPR-36,consisting of Proposed Change 119,revising Tech Specs to Remove Cycle Reload Specific Parameters & Introducing Peaking Factor Limit Rept.Fee Paid

ML20203F125
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	07/16/1986
From:	Randazza J Maine Yankee
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20203F129	List: ML20203F125 ML20203F133
References
MN-86-94, NUDOCS 8607300109
Download: ML20203F125 (5)

Text

_

. 4 MAIRE ~ HARHEE ATOMIOPOWER00MPARUe ,uaugray,?n",%,',

g (207) 623-3521 e

July 16, 1986 MN-86-94 Proposed Change #119 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Document Control Desk

Reference:

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

Subject:

Proposed Change No.119 - Introduction of Peaking Factor Limit Report Gentlemen:

In accordance with Section 50.90 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company proposes to amend Appendix A of

! our Operating License, Reference (a), as follows:

(a) Replace page 2 of the Table of Contents with the enclosed revised page 2.

l (b) Replace page 1.3-1 of Specification 1.3 with the enclosed revised page.

l (c) Replace page 2.2-1 of Specification 2.2 with the enclosed revised page.

l

( (d) Replace pages 3.10-1, 3.10-3, 3.10-6 and 3.10-7 of Speci fication 3.10 l with the enclosed revised pages.

1 (e) Remove pages 3.10-9, 3.10-12 and 3.10-13 from Specification 3.10.

These pages shall be added to the Maine Yankee Core Performance Analysis Report at Appendix A. A copy of Appendix A is provided for information.

(f) Insert the new Specification 5.13 enclosed.

l 8607300109 860716 PDR ADOCK 05000309 P PDR

\

, \

7419HP+

Qee'cl 4 H<cIu $L% oo

e e M AINE Y ANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two Attention: Document Control Desk MN-86-94 4

This proposed change removes the cycle specific parameters from Technical Specifications in order to eliminate the necessity of Technical Specification

, amendments with each cycle reload. The cycle specific information currently submitted in support of Maine Yankee reloads will continue to be submitted to the NRC staff with the Peaking Factor Limit Report. Additionally, Maine Yankee will continue to submit Core Performance Analysis Reports with each cycle to the NRC staff for their information.

This change is requested in order to reduce the Maine Yankee and NRC staff costs associated with modifying certain cycle specific parameters. The change to the description of the maximum nominal fuel enrichment from 3.30 weight percent to 4.10 weight percent is in anticipation of the fuel loading for future cycles. As such, it represents the maximum enrichment anticipated for maintaining 18-month cycles. The requirements for the spent fuel pit are

covered by Technical Specification 1.1 and have not changed. The description of Maine Yankee's linear heat generation rate (LHGR) fuel design parameter and end of cycle burnup estimate have been deleted from Technical Specification 2.2. This information pertains to each cycle's fuel design and is also reported in the Core Performance Analysis Report. Compliance with Maine Yankee's symmetric offset Technical Specification ensures the LHGR fuel design i parameters are maintained. The remaining changes are associated with the j transfer of certain cycle specific parameters to a Peaking Factor Limit Report.

I A summary of Maine Yankee's significant hazards evaluation is attached.

As discussed in the attachment, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any

, accident previously evaluated, or a significant reduction in a margin of 3

safety. Therefore, this proposed change does not involve a significant i hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.

I This proposed change has been reviewed by the Plant Operations Review

! Committee and the Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee. The Plant

) Operations Review Committee has concluded that this change does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

A $150.00 application fee is enclosed.

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

i 7419HP+

• . MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY United States Nuclear Regulatory Cownission Page Three Attention: Document Control Desk MN-86-94 The changes associated with this request are needed to support Cycle 10 operation. If you do not expect approval can be provided by October 1, 1936, please contact us as soon as possible. Additionally, upon your review and approval of this amendment request, we ask that the amendment be effective immediately.

Very trily yours, MAINE YANKEE ATOMIC P0HER COMPANY John B. Randazza Executive Vice President JBR/bjp

Enclosures:

(11 Pages plus $150.00 fee) cc: Mr. Ashok C. Thadani Dr. Thomas E. Murley Mr. Pat Sears Mr. Cornelius F. Holden Mr. Clough Toppan STATE OF MAINE Then personally appeared before me, John 8. Randazza, who being duly sworn did state that he is Executive Vice 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.

SEAI,ekh Notary Public NO RY P Bil f A NL Wy coumission sxPints unicn 3 issj l

7419HP+

j . . M AINE YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY ATTACHMENT A Significant Hazards Consideration Evaluation:

The proposed change request includes a change to the maximum nominal enrichment of the fuel to be used in the reactor core for operating Cycle 10 and beyond, and the transfer of certain cycle specific parameters to a Peaking Factor Report. Maine Yankee is currently in Cycle 9 operation. Maine Yankee

, has evaluated the proposed changes and has concluded that they do not involve a significant hazards consideration. A summary of our evaluation follows:

4 Technical Specification 1.3 describes, in general terms, certain design criteria of the reactor vessel, reactor core, RCS and the emergency core cooling system. The information provided in this specification, such as the number and length of the fuel assemblies and the fuel enrichment is primarily descriptive. Changing the technical specification enrichment from 3.3 weight percent to 4.1 weight percent does not represent a safety issue since the adequacy of a given core design with respect to safety considerations must be addressed prior to each reload core. For each core reload, Maine Yankee must demonstrate that the reload, with its unique loading pattern, resident fuel

! burnup, shim loading and fuel enrichment does not involve a technical

! specification change or an unreviewed safety question. This determination is i made in accordance with Section 50.59 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. Maine Yankee's determination is documented in our Core i Performance Analysis Report.

A change to the enrichment will not impact the acceptability of Maine Yankee's fuel design since essentially the same safety limits will be adhered to in future cycles. Additionally, Maine Yankee will continue to evaluate the effects of each cycle's fuel on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated in the Maine Yankee Final Safety Analysis Report. The methods to be used for these evaluations and the results are those which have previously

been reviewed by the NRC.

The linear heat generation rate (LHGR) fuel design parameters and end of cycle core average burnup number have been deleted from Technical l Specification 2.2. This information is associated with reload core design and

is not normally monitored during operations. Compliance with the symmetric

! offset Limiting Conditions for Operation (Technical Specification 3.10.C.2.2.2) and the symmetric offset operating figures ensures the LHGR design parameters are maintained. The LHGR fuel design parameters and the end of cycle core average burnup number will continue to be reported in Maine i Yankee's Core Performance Analysis Reports. Removing this detailed design

] information from Technical Specifications has no impact on plant operation or j safety.

i Maine Yankee has evaluated this proposed change and we have concluded that it does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The thermal, thermal-hydraulic and physics characteristics of the higher enriched fuel are not significantly different  ;

from fuel of other facilities and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

i 7419HP+

- . MAINE YONKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPOPdY The remaining changes associated with this proposed change are considered purely administrative and involve the rewording of the specifications necessary for the implementation of the Peaking Factor Limit Report.

With our review of this proposed amendment request, Maine Yankee considered the following:

1. Does this proposed amendment request involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

Maine Yankee is requesting the description of the fuel enrichment be changed to represent the maximum enrichment anticipated for maintaining 18-month operating cycles. This change has no impact on the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated.

Maine Yankee will continue to evaluate the effects of each cycle's fuel on the consequences of accidents previously evaluated in Maine Yankee's FSAR, and prior to using the higher enriched fuel, we will confirm acceptable safety analysis results. The remaining changes in this amendment request are administrative and have no impact on the accidents previously evaluated by Maine Yankee and described in our FSAR.

2. Does this proposed amendment request create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

A change to the description of the fuel enrichment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Additionally, the remaining changes proposed with this amendment request are administrative, and are similar to those currently being used at other facilities, and do not create the possibility of any new or different postulated accident scenario.

3. Does this proposed amendment request involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

He believe the proposed change to the description of fuel enrichment does not significantly reduce any safety margin described in the basis of our Technical Specifications. The remaining changes associated with this amendment request are administrative changes and, therefore, do not impact any safety margin.

Forthesereasonswehaveconcludedthattheproposedchangeshonot involve a significant hazards consideration.

I 7419HP+

. . _ _ - _ . - _ . - _ _ -- - __- - - _-___- ___ _ - - ._ - - _ _ - - _ - - - - _ - _ -