ML20055D591
| ML20055D591 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 06/21/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055D590 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9007090148 | |
| Download: ML20055D591 (5) | |
Text
'
y l
i
,,8 [...%
\\,
UNITED $ FATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
I, l
wAsamotow, p. c. rosse 1
- ..+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
SUPPORTitlG AMENDMENT N0.38 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE fig. NPF-57 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION g
DOCKET NO. 50_.354
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 11, 1989, Putlic Service Electric & Gas Company (PSElG), the licensee for Hope Creek Ouclear Station, Unit 1 proposed to change the Technical Specifications (Tl') Section 5.6.3 to increase the installed spent fuel storage capacity from 1290 fuel assemblies to tha full plant design storage capacity of 4006 assemblies as described in FSAR Section 9.1.2.2.2.
The expansion consists of placing additional L
original design storage racks thereby not resulting in a K y of the pool exceeding 0.95. Aftertheproposedexpansion,thespentf0elpoolwill f
be able to store fuel from thirteen outages and a full core offload. The l
staff reviewed the spent fuel pool cooling and heavy load handling aspects of the proposed expansion from 1290 fuel assembliec in the i
following evaluation.
2.0 PREVIOUS ANALYSES The analyses of the FSAR were peeformed for a spent fuel pool with the capacity for 4006 spent fuel elements. The new fuel racks are of the same design and construction as those triginally installed. Therefore, the analyses for criticality, seismic, structural, and thermal / hydraulic considerations remain bounded by the assumptions and calculations used in the FSAR and need not be repeated for this amendment request.
3.0 EVALUATION i.
3.1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling L
No modifications to the spent fuel pool cooling system are proposed from the design reviewed in the Hope Creek Safety Evaluation Report NUREG-1048 excest that the licensee has increased the design heat removal capability of t se s)ent fuel pool heat exchangers from 16.1 million BTV/Hr to 19.0 million 1TU/Hr by. adding additional cooling plates in the heat exchanger.
Therefore, the spent fuel pool cooling system was only reviewed against the requirements of General Design Criterion (GDC) 44 for decay heat removal and GDC 2 for make-up during loss of all cooling as defined in O$$k$$$$$$4 1
n2
. W Standard Review Plan (SRP), Section 9.1.3 for storage of 4006 fuel assemblies. The cooling system was originally reviewed for storage of 3668 fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool.
Decay Heat Removal - The licensee indicated that the decay heat loads based on proposed storage capacity of 4006 spent fuel assemblies are calculated to be 16.1 million BTU /Hr after 16 refueling (design or maximum normal) and 34.2 million BTV/Hr after 13 refueling and full core off-load (maximum or maximum abnormal). These heat load calculations are based on Branch Technical Position ASB 9-2 as delineated in SRP and fuel discharge per FSAR Table 9.1.2.
The licensee indicated that the spent fuel pool cooling and RHR systems are designed to remove normal decay heat loads of 19.0 million BTU /Hr anr-maximum abnormal decay heat loads greater than 45 million BTV/Hr against the reouirements of 16.1 million BTV/Hr and 34.2
}
million BTU /Hr respectively. The above heat removal capability is designed to maintain the spent fuel pool temperature at a maximum of 135'F during maximum normal heat loads and at or below 150*F during maximum abnormal heat loads which are more conservative than the SRP requirements.
As a result of its review of the heat loads, the staff finds that the spent fuel pool cooling system meets the requirements of GDC 44 for storage of 4006 fuel assemblies with respect to providing adequate cooling.
Loss of Cooling - The licensee calculated that assuming loss of all cooling and the spent fuel pool filled to the design storage capacity, boiling would occur after 17.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for the maximum normal heat load 16.1 million BTU /Hr and 8.03 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> for e maximum abnormal heat load 34.2 million BTU /Hr and would result in a boil-off rate of 34.4 and 73.5 gam respectively. This provides reasonabic time to initiate make-up to tie spent fuel pool from Seismic Category I Station Service Water system or fire-bose fill station or the condensate storage tank. The above information is provided in the FSAR. Because the seismic category I make-up source is more than adequate to provide water for the higher boil-off rate, the design meets the requirements of GDC 2, Design Bases for Protection against Natural Phenomena.
3.2 Heavy Load Handling The spent fuel storage rack is considered to be a heavy load as it weighs more than a spent fuel assembly and its handling tool.
The licensee stated that lifting and installing the spent Tuel rack will be performed using a single failure proof reactor building polar crane, auxiliary hoist and the rack lifting fixture. These equipment are designed and inspected / tested to single failure criteria in accordance with NUREG-0544, NUREG-0612 and ANSI 14.6 requirements. All load handling will follow clearly established safe load handling paths as indicated in FSAR Section 9.1.5 and evaluated in the Hope Creek Safety i
"J ii.ii-
l
'. ',e
(
l
- Evaluation Report, NUREG-1048, Supplement 1.
Polar crane administrative controls will ensure that a heavy load is not accidentally carried over the spent fuel areas.
As a result of its review, the staff finds that the heavy load handling will be performed in accordance with the guidelines of NUREG-0612 as evaluated in the-Hope Creek Safety Evaluation Report, NUREG-1048, Section 9.1.5 to ensure against an unacceptable release of radioactivity or criticality accident as a result of a heavy load drop, and is therefcre, acceptable.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and publisned (55 FR 25185) in the Federal Register on June 20, 1990. Based upon the environmental assessment, t'1e commission has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission published a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to-Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Hearing in the Federal Register on November 22, 1989 (54 FR 48340). No petition to intervene or
-request for hearing has been filed on this action. The state of New Jersey did not have any conenents.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there,is reasonable assuranco that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the pro)osed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance wit 1 the Connission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the cosmon defense and' security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
June 21, 1990 Principal. Contributor:
R. Goel L
+
,]l.,
7590-01 tlNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-354-NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (Commission) has issued Amendment k
No. 38 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 issued to the Public Service Electric and Gas Company (the-licensee), which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station, located ^
in Salem County, New Jersey. The amendments were effective as of-the date of issuance and will be implemented within 60 days of its date of. issuance.
The amendments revised Technical Specifications to 5.6.3, Spent Fuel Storage Capacity, to permit the-installation of-the necessary rack capacity for storage of 4006 spent fuel assemblies.
The application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations..The Commission has made' appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chaptar !; which tre set forth in the license amendment.
.l.
Notice of Consideration of Issu nce of Amendrent to Facility. Operating I
a license and Opportunity for Hearing in connection t.ith this' action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on November 22, 1989 (54 FR 48340). No request for a hearing or petition for leave tr intervene was filed following.
this notice.
1
t
.e j ;.. -*
2 The Comission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to the action and has determined not to prepare an envirormental impact statement.
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission has concluded that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of-the human environment.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment dated October 11,1989,(2) Amendment No. 38 to License No.
NPF-57, and (3) the Comission's related Safety Evaluation and Environmental Assessment. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Pennsville Public Library, 190 S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070. A copy of items (2), and (3) may be obtained upon request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director, Division of Reactor Projects 1/11.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of June 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Walter R. Butler, Director Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
P