ML18092B301

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,deleting Tech Spec 5.3.1 Re Max Fuel Rod Weight Limit of 1,766 G U. Fee Paid

ML18092B301
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	10/03/1986
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18092B302	List: ML18092B301 ML18092B304
References
NUDOCS 8610100227
Download: ML18092B301 (6)

Text

._I Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Han cocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Vice President -

Nuclear October 3, 1986 NLR-N86135 Ref: LCR 86-02 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20014 Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-70 AND DPR-75 UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as* amended and the regulations thereunder, we hereby transmit copies of our request for amendment and our analyses of the changes to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

This amendment request consists of a change to the Technical Specification 5.3.1 to delete the maximum fuel rod weight limit of 1766 grams of uranium.

In accordance with the fee requirements of 10 CFR 170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.

(--

B610.i. 0 -------

PDR 227 861 - --- -

P ADDCK 0500003

'027~

PDRc;

Mr. Steven A. Varga 2 10-3-86 Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.

This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies.

Sincerely, Enclosure C Mr. Donald c. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. Thomas J. Kenny Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Chief Projects Branch No. 2, DPRP Region 1 Mr. Frank Cosolito, Acting Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628 Honorable Charles M. Oberly, III Attorney General of the State of Delaware Department of Justice 820 North French Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Ref: LCR 86-02 STATE OF NEW JERSEY SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated Oct. 3, 1986, concerning our Request for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

/;) /'_

• I t\ _ ~

~~ ....----

Subscri!:ld and SwornA-t9 >>efore me this_2 day of v~ , 1986 LARAINE Y. BEARD Notary Public of New Jersey My Commission Expires May 1, 1991 My Commission expires on

LCR 86-02 Page 1 of 3 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE The proposed change to Design Features Section 5.3.1, Fuel Assemblies of the Salem Unit 1 and 2 Technical Specifications deletes the maximum fuel rod weight limit of 1766 grams of uranium. The proposed change permits the use of assemblies with fuel rods over the weight limit and also reflects the relative insensitivities of this technical specification parameter in the safety analysis. It is judged that this weight difference does not have a significant impact on the safety analyses. Therefore, deletion of the Design Features fuel rod weight limit is not significant to the safe operation of the plant. This is the only reference to fuel rod uranium weight in the Technical Specifications. In addition, the FSAR identifies a nominal core weight of U0-2 (in pounds) for the initial (Cycle 1) core.

REASON FOR CHANGE Section 5.3.1 of the Technical Specifications identifies a maximum total fuel rod weight of 1766 grams of uranium. Recent improvements to the fuel design (including chamfered pellets with a reduced dish and a nominal density increase) have increased fuel rod weight slightly. The weight increases have caused the maximum fuel rod weight to exceed the specified maximum value of 1766 grams. This change will delete the specified maximum weight limit to allow the current fuel to be in compliance with the Salem 1 and 2 Technical Specifications.

SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION PSE&G and Westinghouse Electric Corporation have performed analyses justifying the use of assemblies with fuel rods over the weight limit. These analyses were provided in our letter NLR-N86057, dated April 25, 1986.

In support of this proposed change to Technical Specification 5.3.1, Westinghouse has performed an additional evaluation, which finds that the weight limit is not significant to the safe operation of the plant.

Although a number of safety analyses are affected indirectly by fuel weight, the analyses are more sensitive to fuel configuration, length, enrichment and physical design, which are also specified in the plant Technical Specifications. The Technical Specifications limit power and power distribution, thus controlling the fission rate and the rate of decay heat production. Fuel rod weight does not have any direct bearing on the power limits, power operating level, or decay heat rate. The composition of the fuel is closely moni tared to assure acceptable fuel performance. The fuel weight changes that could be made without Technical Specification limit are not of sufficient magnitude to cause a significant difference

LCR 86-02 Page 2 of 3 in fuel performance as analyzed by Westinghouse. There are no expected observable changes in normal operation due to the noted fuel rod weight changes, and the remaining fuel parameters listed in the Technical Specifications are considered in the Reload Safety Evaluation.

Other Design Basis Events were examined to assess the effects of possible changes in fuel rod weight. Fuel rod weight will only change as a result of a specific change in the physical design, which is addressed in the Reload Safety Evaluation, or within the manufacturing tolerences, in which case the changes in the fuel rod weight are relatively insignificant. Changes in nuclear design resulting from fuel rod weight changes are controlled as discussed above. For these changes, the effect on new and spent fuel criticality and fuel handling analyses remain bounded by the existing analyses and Technical Specification Design Feature limits. Fuel-handling equipment and procedures are not affected by these weight changes. Seismic/LOCA analyses contain sufficient conservatism to bound these weight changes. Other accident analyses are not affected by rod weight as a direct parameter, and the existing analyses remain bounding.

The proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration because operation in accordance with this change would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The deletion of the fuel rod uranium weight limit does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of previously evaluated accidents. The variation in fuel rod weight that can occur even without a Technical Specification limit is small based on other fuel design constraints, e.g., rod diameter, gap size, U0-2 density and active fuel length, all of which provide some limit on the variation in rod weight. The current safety analyses are not based directly on the fuel rod weight, but rather on design parameters such as power and fuel dimensions.

These parameters are either not affected at all by fuel rod weight, or are only slightly affected. However, a review of design parameters which may be affected indicates that such an insignificant change in fuel weight does not cause other design parameters to exceed the values assumed in the various safety analyses, or cause acceptance criteria to be exceeded. The effects are not significant with respect to measured nuclear parameters (power, power distribution, nuclear coefficients), which remain within their Technical Specification limits. Thus, it is concluded that the Technical Specification modification does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated ace ident.

LCR 86-02 Page 3 of 3

2. Create the possiblity of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The creation of a new, different kind of accident from any previously evaluated accident is not considered a possibility. All of the fuel contained in the fuel rod is similar to and designed to function similar to previous fuel. Thus, the existing new and spent fuel storage criticality analyses bound the changes observed. This change is considered administrative in nature and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Involve a reduction in a margin of safety. The margin of safety is maintained by adherence to other fuel-related Technical Specification limits and the FSAR design bases.

The deletion of 5.3.1 does not directly affect any safety system or the safety limits, and thus does not affect the plant margin to safety.

The commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (48FR14870, dated April 6, 1983). The proposed change corresponds to Example (i) for purely administrative changes.