ML17303A595
| ML17303A595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1987 |
| From: | Haynes J ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| 161-00553-JGH-L, 161-553-JGH-L, TAC-65692, TAC-66182, TAC-66183, NUDOCS 8710060075 | |
| Download: ML17303A595 (9) | |
Text
REGULA INFORMATION DISTRIBUTIO YSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NOR: 8710060075 DOC. DATE: 87/10/01 NOTARIZED:
NO FACIL:STN-50-528 Palo Verde Nuclear Stations Unit ii Arizona Publi STN-50-529 Palo Verde Nuclear Stations Unit 2i Arizona Publi STN-50-530 Palo Verde Nuclear Stations Unit 3i Arizona Publi AUTH. NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION HAYNES'. G.
Arizona Nuclear Power ProJect (formerly Arizona Public Berv RECIP. NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk)
SUBJECT:
Forwards revised pages of Tech Spec submittals of 870713 ltr re request for addi info for reload Tech Spec amend.
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
- OOID COPIES RECEIVED: LTR t
ENCL t
SIZE:
TITLE:
OR Submittal:
General Distribution NOTES: Standard i z ed p lant.
Btandardi zed plant.
Standardi zed plant.
05000528 05000529 05000530 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 LA LICITRAiE INTERNAL: ACRB NRR/DEBT/ADB NRR/DEBT/MTB NRR/DOEA/TSB OGC/HDBi REB/DE/EIB EXTERNAL: EGM SRUSKE, S NRC PDR NOTES:
COPIES LTTR ENCL 1
0 1
1 6
6 1
1 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME PD5 PD DAVIS'
'RM/DAF/LFMB NRR/DEBT/CEB NRR/DEST/RBB NR ILRB REG F LE 01 LPDR NBIC COP IEB LTTR ENCL 5
5 1
1 1
0 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR 29 ENCL 26
k
>I
Arizona Nuclear Power Project P.O. BOX 52034
~
PHOENIX, ARIZONA85072-2034 Docket Nos.
STN 50-528/529/530 October 1, 1987 161-00553-JGH/LJM U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 ATTN: Document Control Desk
Reference:
1)
J.
G. Haynes letter to Document Control Desk (NRC),
6/29/87 (161-00320)
Dear Sirs:
2)
J.
G. Haynes letter to Document Control Desk (NRC),
9/14/87 (161-00500)-
e
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2 and 3
Reload Technical Specification Amendments-Revision to the Enrichment Submittals File: 87-F-005-419.05; 87-B-056-026; 87-C-056-026 87-F-056-026 Attached please find revised pages of the Technical Specification submittals of reference letters 1
and 2.
Attachment A
contains the revised pages to the amendment request concerning the maximum allowable enrichment in Unit 1.
Attachment B contains the revised pages to the amendment request concerning the maximum allowable enrichment in Units 2 and 3.
By copy of this letter, we are also forwarding the proposed changes to the appropriate state agency.
87100b0075 805000528 87 F001 Ago<< o-LPoa-P
"0 v,~
P If I
Document Control Desk Page 2
October 1, 1987 161-00553-JGH/LJM If you have any questions, please call W. F. Quinn at (602) 371-4087.
Very truly yours,
~u,J J.
G. Hay/es Vice President Nuclear Production JGH/LJM/ls Attachment cc:
0.
M.
E.
E.
G.
W.
J.
R.
J.
B.
E. A.
A. C.
C. F.
De Michele Van Brunt, Jr.
Knighton Ball Martin Licitra (w/a)
Gehr Tedford
ATTACHMENT A.
DESCRIPTION OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION AMENDMENT RE UEST The proposed amendment increases the maximum enrichment from 4.0 to 4.05 weight percent U-235 as set forth in Technical Specification (T.S.) 5.3.1.
B.
PURPOSE OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION T.S. 5.3.1 describes the core by way of the number of fuel assemblies, the length of the fuel rods and the weight of the fuel rods. It identifies the physical properties of the rods, fuel and burnable poison, contained within a
bundle.
The T.S. states the maximum allowable enrichment of U-235.
C.
NEED FOR THE ECHNICAL SPECIFICAT ON AMENDMENT To support the desired fuel management design of Cycle 2 and to allow future 1&-month equilibrium cycles, the maximum peak pin enrichment as stated in T.S.
5.3.1 will be increased to the value of 4.05, weight percent U-235.
By increasing the enrichment to 4.05 PVNGS will be able to'eet the long term goal of 18 month equilibrium cycles without adversely affecting safety margins.
D.
BASIS FOR PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION 1.
The Commission has provided standards for determining whether a
significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92.
A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with a proposed amendment would not:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) Create the possibility of a new or different'kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3)
Involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
A discussion of these standards as they relate to the amendment request follows:
Standard 1--Involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Increasing the maximum allowed enrichment to 4.05 weight percent affects the criticality analysi.s for New Fuel Storage and Spent Fuel Storage.
The FSAR'references an enrichment of 4.0 wt%, however, the results of the existing criticality analyses was calculated for a maximum enrichment of 4.3 wta.(Refer to attached ANPP letter dated July 13, 1987.)
The results of the analysis for 4.05 enrichment shows that the K ff for new fuel storage/handling is still less than the limit of 0.98 as required by T.S.
5.6.1.2 and for spent fuel handling/storage is still less than the limit of 0.95 as required by T.S.
5.6.1.1.
Additionally, there is no significant increase in adverse environmental impacts.
Such small increases in enrichment can be considered bounded within the existing analysis due to the margin in the analysis created by conservatisms.
Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated will not be increased.
Standard 2--Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the proposed change will not alter the configuration of the plant or the way in which it is operated.
Therefore, t'e proposed change will not create a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Standard 3--Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the acceptance criteria of K less than 0.98 for new fuel storage racks and K f less than 0.95 for spent fuel storage racks eff ef$
provides the margin to cr8icality.
The worst case K
calculated for the proposed change with 4.05 wt%
U-235 is less than the acceptance eff criteria for these configurations.
Therefore, the proposed change does not significantly reduce a margin of safety.
2.
The proposed amendment matches the guidance concerning the application of standards for determining whether or not a
significant hazards consideration exists (51 FR 7751) by example:
(iii)
For a nuclear power reactor, a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, if no fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved.
This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptable criteria for the Technical Specifications, the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the Technical Specifications and regulations are not significantly
- changed, and that NRC has previously found such methods acceptable.
SAFETY EVALUATION FOR THE AMENDMENT RE UEST The proposed Technical Specification amendment will not increase the probability of occurrence or. the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR.
The accidents affected by increasing the maximum allowed enrichment to 4.05 wt% deal with New Fuel Storage and Spent Fuel Storage.
Increasing the enrichment affects the criticalit'y analysis for storage and handling.
The FSAR references an enrichment of 4.0 wtS, however, the results of the existing criticality was calculated for a maximum enrichment of 4.3 wtS.(Refer to attached ANPP letter dated July 13, 1987.)
The results of the analysis for 4.05 enrichment shows