ML18095A839
| ML18095A839 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1991 |
| From: | Labruna S Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| NLR-N91039, NUDOCS 9104080107 | |
| Download: ML18095A839 (4) | |
Text
. '--
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Stanley LaBruna Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609-339-4800 Vice President - Nuclear Operations APR o l 1991 NLR-N91039 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:
RESPONSE TO VERBAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCREASED FUEL ASSEMBLY ENRICHMENT SALEM GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 Public Service Electric and Gas hereby provides the additional information verbally requested by Mr. Jim Stone in February of this year.
This information pertains to our amendment request which would facilitate the maximum allowable fuel assembly enrichment in the reactor, new fuel storage racks and spent fuel storage racks (reference PSE&G request for license amendment, NLR-N90197, November 19, 1990).
The requested information is contained Attachment 1 of this submittal.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91(b) (1), a copy of this submittal has been sent to the state of New Jersey as indicated below.
Should you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please feel free to contact us.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Attachment
Document Control Desk NLR-N91039 c
Mr. J. c. Stone Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. Johnson Senior Resident Inspector Mr. T. Martin Administrator - Region I Mr. Kent Tosch 2
APR o t 1991 Chief -
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Environmental Quality Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625
NLR-N91039 ATTACHMENT 1 REQUESTED INFORMATION Evaluate the utilization of higher enrichment fuel with respect
"'n
,,~T"\\
~"'
r-,..
llT':'I--....!------.&..-,
T:1.C.C--.L..-
-.C m-------.&..-.&...! --
_.ic:
~---,
t..V
.1.V
¥.1:.n
- .1.1.. ;.I&,'
--.C.11V.1..LVlULU::::ut..a.1.
.C..L.L'l::::wt..;:o V.L
.L.Lau;:o.PV.L t..at...1.VU V.L
.I: U'l::::.L and Waste -
Table S-4 11 *
RESPONSE
Paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 51.52 delineates that for reactors in which U-235 fuel enrichment exceeds 4% by weight or fuel irradiation exceeds 33,000 MWD/MTU, the licensee shall provide a full description of the environmental impact under normal conditions of transport and from accidents in transport.
This issue was addressed by the NRC in response to a similar amendment request submitted by Carolina Power and Light Co.
The staff's discussion was published in Federal Register 30355-30356 (August 11, 1988), "NRC Assessment of the Environmental Effects of Transportation Resulting From Extended Fuel Enrichment and Irradiation".
In this discussion, the staff concluded that:
- 1.
The environmental impacts summarized in Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52 are conservative and bound burnup levels up to 60,000 MWD/MTU and U-235 enrichments.up to 5% by weight.
- 2.
There are no significant adverse radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the use of fuel with extended burnup and/or increased enrichment.
- 3.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for the proposed action.
The staff proposed to revise 10 CFR 51.52 to reflect the conclusions listed above and, in the interim, to accept the analysis of four studies that had been conducted on the environmental effects of transporting fuel with extended burnup and/or increased enrichment.
These analysis are documented in detail in Federal Register 30356-30358.
The conclusions of each of the four studies indicate that higher irradiation levels reduce the the number of fuel reload outages and fuel shipments.
Although the higher irradiated fuel has more long-lived radionuclides per unit mass compared with spent fuel at current limits, the amount of annual discharge is reduced.
Therefore, the reduction in number of spent fuel shipments from the reactor reduces the estimated number of persons exposed. The reduced number of shipments also reduces the likelihood of transportation accidents.
In summary, 11 *** the
environmental cost contributions of the stated increases in fuel enrichment and irradiation limits are either unchanged or may in fact be reduced from those summarized in Table S-4, as set out in 10 CFR 51.52(c)" (Federal Register 30358).
The above discussion along with the information documented in Federal Register 30355-30358 should be sufficient to properly address the NRC's question pertaining to PSE&G's compliance with 10 CFR 51.52.
Additionally, two more items came up in discussion with Mr. stone that warrant mention here.
At the present time, PSE&G does not feel that it is necessary to address all questions regarding extended fuel burnup.
The first cycle in which use of the higher enriched fuel is scheduled is Salem Unit 1 Cycle 11.
Based on current operating schedules, this cycle will begin in May 1992 and will accumulate 431 effective full power days (16,600 MWD/MTU).
This operation should not irradiate any of the fuel beyond current analyzed limits.
Additionally, as part of the reload design process it will be assured that the core will meet all safety limits, operating within the bounds of the Technical Specifications.
At the present time there are no plans to change any of the Technical Specifications for Cycle 11 pertaining to power distribution limits (Section 3/.2).
Therefore there should be no impacts on spent fuel pool heat loads (upon discharge) or radiological source terms.
Based on the above reasoning it does not seem necessary to tie the burnup issue into this amendment request.
Lastly, PSE&G has received documentation from Westinghouse that the fresh fuel shipping containers currently in use are limited to 4.7% U-235 by weight (without IFBA).
Therefore, these containers meet our proposed enrichment limit of 4.55% U-235 by weight.