ML20010H914

Forwards Reload 5 Submittal & Request for Tech Specs Change

ML20010H914
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	09/22/1981
From:	Howard J BOSTON EDISON CO.
To:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20010H915	List: ML20010H914 ML20010H921 ML20010H924
References
81-222, NUDOCS 8109290408
Download: ML20010H914 (5)

Text

.

l J/ N BDSTON EolsON COMPANY p 800 BOYLsTON STREET  % f Q, BOSTON, massachusetts 02199  : SEP28 793I , 4 p- p.s. % U J. EDWARD HOWARD C% g3 %y

.. g- .

s" September 22,198 h BECo. Ltr.81-222 Mr. Thomas A. Ippolito, mief Proposed Gange No. 81-04 Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 t License No. DPR-35 Docket No. 50-293 Reload 5 Submittal and Request for Technical Specification G anges

Reference:

a. " Generic Reload Fuel Application " NEDE-24011-P-A, July 1979 as ammended.

b. " Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Reload 5".

Y 1003J01 A28, Augus t 1981

c. Revision 1 to " Loss of Coolant Accident Analysis Report for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station", NED0-21696,

d. " Supplement 1 to Supplemental Reload Licensing

. Submittal for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Reload 4" NED0-24224=1 March 1980.

Dear Sir:

The fifth refueling outage for Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit #1 is scheduled to ccmxe in September 1981. Analyses (Reference b.) supporting and just.fying the operation of Pilgrim I during Cycle 5 are hereby submitted for your reveiv.

Reference b supplements generic analyses previously submitted by General Electric by Reference a. Reference e updates the original Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) report by including MAPLHGR tables for more recent fuel types and by adding, as an appendix, a dis-cussion of TDCA analyses with no core spray heat transfer credit.

0

\

8109290408 810922 7 PDR ADOCK 05000293

(,0 k'0 P PDR. 9g Q

C0" TON EDCON COMPANY Mr. Thomas A. Ippolito September 22,1981 Page 2 This appendix is identical to ' ' analysis description submitted and reviewed as Reference d in connection with PNPS Reload 4.

Applicable changes to Appendix (Technical Specifications) to Facility Operating License (No. DPR-35) are also submitted for you review, approval and issuance pursuant to Section 50 of Title 10, Code of Federal I Regulations.

Proposed Technical Specification Changes (Including Reasons)

It is proposed to modify the existing Technical Specifications as described in the attached pages. The changes are designed to allow operation af ter Reload 5.

1. Specification 3.11A Figure 3.11-6 which present the MAPLHGF for the new fuel type P8DRB265H is to be added, along with th associated textual changes on pages 205C and 2050-E. The figure is a plot generated by multiplying the normal MAPLHGR's by reducing factors to account for no core spray heat transfer credit as described in Appendix A of Reference c.

2. Specificatica 3.11C The operating MCPR Technical Specification has been revised to an

" option B" format where the OLMCPR varies with measured scram times.

The specification is based on measurements to the 30% inserted posi-tion which was chosen to coincide with present surveillance proce-dures at PNPS. The numerical values of the MCPR's are based on the CPR's from the Load Rejection w/o Bypass Transient given in Reference b.

Safety Considerations Generic information relative to the reload fuel design and analyses of BWR fuel is presented in GE Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, " Generic Reload Fuel / 'ication", July, 1979 (Reference a). This report is supple-mented by pit specific information contained in Reference b. (The reference core loading for Reload 5 is identified in this later document.)

Together, these two documents provide the bases for the safety analysis and safety evaluation for Reload 5, and the proposed Technical Specification changes associated with the reload. The following narrative summarizes those -

safety aspects which are reload specific.

The Keload 5 fuel assemlies are identical in mechanical design to P8 x 8R assemblics previously licensed and operated in the Pilgrim 1 Cycle 5.

E03 TON EDCON COM PANY Mr ..,omas A. Ippolito September 22,1981 Page 3 The PCDRB265H assembly differs from P8DRB265L bundles presently in the core only in having a higher percentage of gadolirium in the poison rods.

This change la accounted for in the reload analysis.

All transients which are the basis of the Pilgrim License were reviewed for Reload 5. Those transients which are critical with respect to safety margins and sensitive to the core reload para-meter changes were reanalyzed. The most restrictive condition is calculated to occur as a result of a Generator Load Rejection with-out bypass. The analysis of e.his transient is done using Technical Specification scram times but the uncertainity penalty applied to the nominal results is based or. sensitivity studies done by GE us ,g a generic population of scram speed data. The proposed Tech-nical Specification changes i.x '.ude a verification that PNPS is not outside this population, or if it is, the OLMCPR linearly epproaches a conservative value of 1.40 for P8 x 8R fuel or 1.37 for 8 x 8 fuel. Operation within the proposed T.S. iimit will avoid violation of the Safety Limit MCPR at any time during Cycle 6.

The reactor vessel overpressure protection is verified by the analysis of the closure of all main steam line isolation valves with an indirect (flux) scram. At the end of Cycle 6 with all safety relief vcives operating and an indirect scram the peak vessel pressure remains 45 psi below the peak allowable ASME overpressure of 1375 psig at the vessel bottom.

Values of MAPLHGR for the new bundle type PBDRB265H have been cal-culated using the NRC approved methods described in Reference 2 and assuming no core spray heat transfer. This is the same method and asumption used to generate the MAPLHGR's for the present fuel types .

Review of the nuclear design of the Pilgrim Core with the Reload 5 fuel in place shows that the minimum shutdown margin with the strongest control rod fully withdrawn is calculated to be greater than 1.4% K/K, which exceeds the 0.25% K/K required by the Tech-nical Specifications of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station plus the 0.04% K/K allowan;e for inverted tubes in the control rod blades.

The maximum incremental control rod worth using bank position with-

, dr wal sequences in Cycle 6 is 0.70% K. This is below the Technical

' Specification limit of 1.0% K and assures the peak fuel enthalpy during a rod drop accident will be less than the 280 cal /gm (1) design limit.

The new fuel can be safely stored in the spent fuel pool since the maximum fuel loading and enrichment are within present Technical Specification limits of 16.0 gm U-23' per em and 3.0 w/o U-235, respective'y.

CD3 TON EDCON COMPA.'Y Mr. Thomas A. Ippolitio Septembe r 22, 1981 Page 4 Concl us ions Based on the evaluation presented herein and the contents and analyses presented in Reference a. and b., it can be concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the health auf safety of the public will not be endangered by operation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit #1 following Reload No. 5.

This proposed amendment has been reviewed and approved by the Operations Review Committee and reviewed by the Nuclear Safety Review and Audit Commit t e e .

Schedule The Boston Edison Company tentatively plans to commence the refueling outage for Pilgrim I on Septenber 26, 1981. Therefore, an expeditious review and approval of this submittal is requested.

Fee Consideration In accordance with Section 170.12 of the Commission's Regulations, Boston Edison proposes this license change as Class III since it utilizes NRC approved topical reports as referenced. Accordingly, a check for Four Thousand Dollars ($4,000) is enclosed.

Should there by any questions regarding this submittal, please contact us.

Very truly yours 3 signed originals and 40 copies Attachments - (1) Proposed Changes to Appendix A (Technical Specifications)

(2) Reference (b)

(3) Reference (c)

Commonwealth of Massachusetts)

County of Suffolk )

Then personnally appeared before me J. Edward Howard, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Vice President - Nuclear of Boston Edison Company, the applicant herein, and that he is duly authorized to execute and file the sub-mittal contained herein in the name and on behalf of Boston Edison Company and that the statements in said submittal are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

My Commission expires: d [j /9/g f/ .

NotjkyPublic f 11)

m.

ATTACHMENT (1)

Technical Specification pages 205 B 205 B-1 205 B-2 205 C 205 C-2 205 C-3 205 D 205 E-6

_ _ _ _ .