ML20137Y843
| ML20137Y843 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pilgrim |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1985 |
| From: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Y846 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512110160 | |
| Download: ML20137Y843 (4) | |
Text
.
/ a aeg'o m
UNITED STATES 8
~,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-293 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No.91 License No. DPR-35 j
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has found that:
1.
i A.
The application for amendment by Boston Edison Company '(the licensee)datedApril 12, 1985 as supplemented September 17, 1985, complies with the standards and re Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) quirements of the Atomic Energy and the Comission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; i
B.
The facility will operate in confonnity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the
[-
Comission; i
C.
There is reasonable assurance (1) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health I
and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations; 6
i D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the f
public; and E.
The issuance of this a~mendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
2.
Accordingly, the license is amended by changes to the Technical Specifications as indicated in the attachment to this license amendment, and paragraph 3.B of Facility Operating License No. DPR-35 is hereby amended to read as follows:
0512110160 851203 PDR ADOCK 05000293 P
e
-2 B.
Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 91, are hereby incorporated in the license.
The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
3.
This license amendment is effective 30 days after the date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
J John. Zwolinski, Director BWR Project Directorate #1
{
Division of BWR Licensing
Attachment:
Changes to the Technical Specifications Date of Issuance:
December 3, 1985.
l l
l e
q,
n---e
---e
ATTACHMENT TO LICENSE AMENDMENT NO. 91 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 DOCKET NO. 50-293 Replace the following page of the Technical Specifications with the enclosed page. The revised page is identified by amendment number and contains a vertical line indicating the areas of change.
Remove Insert 207 207 i
e h
I I
5
-5.5 FUEL STORAGE A.
The new fuel storage facility shall be such that the K.,r dry is less than 0.90 and flooded is less than 0.95.
8.
The K r, of the spent fuel storage pool shall be less than or equal to 0.95.
C.
Fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool shall have a maximu'm K -
infinity less than or equal to 1.35.
I D.
The number of spent fuel assemblies stored in the spent fuel pool shall not exceed 2320.
E.
Loads in excess of 1000 lbs. shall be prohibited from travel over fuel assemblies in the spent fuel storage pool, i
F.
No fuel which has decayed for less than 200 days shall be stored in racks within an arc described by the height of the cask around the periphery of the energy aborbing pad.
5.6 SEISMIC DESIGN The station Class I structures and systems have been designed for ground accelerations of 0.08g (design earthquake) and 0.15g (maximum credible earthquake).
i t
[.
~
l t
h I
t Amendment No. 33, 91 207
x2s new o,,
UNITED STATES ~
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wAsHmc1rON, D. C. 20555
- \\
}
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-35 BOSTON EDISON COMPANY PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-293
1.0 INTRODUCTION
f By letter dated April 12, 1985, as supplemented September 17, 1985, J..-
the Boston Edison Company (BECo, the licensee) proposed the following modifications to Section 5.5, Fuel Storage, of the Technical Specifications j
}
(TS) for Pilgrim Station:
f (1) changing the K-effective (neutron multiplication factor) for the spent fuel storage pool (SFSP) from "less than or equal to 0.90"~to "less e-than or equal to 0.95."
P' (2) changing the present limitations on fuel in the SFSP from "a maximum fuel loading of 16.0 grams of U-235 per axial centimeter" and "a maximum assembly average loading of 3.0 weight percent U-235" to "a maximum K-infinity less than or equal to 1.35."
f.
2.0 EVALUATION t*
(1) BECo's submittal states that the proposed change of K-effective in the
- ~
8 TS is to provide more. flexibility in the event of a future redesign of the fuel racks. The proposed K-effective (less than or equal to 0.95) would apply to the SFSP for both normal and abnormal conditions and would include an appropriate allowance for uncertainties. As indicated in Section 10.3.5 6
of the Pilgrim Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), " normal conditions 1
exist when the fuel storage racks are located at the bottom of the pool, covered with a normal depth of water (about 25 feet above the stored fuel) for radiation shielding, and with the maximum number of fuel assemblies in r
I their design storage position. Abnormal conditions may result from an earthquake or damage caused by the horizontal movement of fuel handling equipment without first disengaging the fuel from the hoisting equipment."
The uncertainties referred to above result primarily from fuel enrichment and density variations, eccentric positioning of fuel assemblies within storage cells, and cell lattice dimensional tolerances.
Prior to mid-1976, the NRC acceptance criterion for the neutron multiplication factor (K-effective) for spent fuel storage arrays was "less than or equal to 0.90."
However, the need for higher density storage was perceived'and the NRC staff determined that a K-effective of 0.95 provides an adequate safety margin from criticality. Therefore, in June 1
s em
,m
,w, 1-C--r---1=e*-'-e-tw--N'S-*-w-e*-
Tw----'s-*-e avwe-' ewe--v+e--
- = - * - - - --
- -'vmw--v---mrrm-**
r 5-
i 2-1976, the NRC adopted the maximum K-effective of 0.95 when it accepted the American National Standard Institute (ANSI) N-18.2 standard for spent fuel storage pools (Ref.1). Part of the rationale for NRC acceptance of the ANSI N-18.2 standard was that the adoption of the higher permissible value of K-effective was accompanied by more stringer.t requirements with respect to the calculations on which high-density storage designs are Lased.
NRC's guidance issued to licensees on April 14, 1978, and updated on.
January 18, 1979, elaborates on the requirements to be met for criticality calculations (Ref. 2). That guidance fonned the basis for Standard Review Plan Section 9.1.2 relative to Spent Fuel Storage (Ref. 3). As stated therein, a K-effective not greater than 0.95 is acceptable. This criterion was applied in our Safety Evaluation for~ Amendment No. 33 to the Pilgrim Operating License which authorized the installation and use of the present high density storage racks. The FSAR for Pilgrim states that "the spent fuel storage racks are designed to maintain, when fully loaded with fuel assemblies, a subcritical configuration having a K-effective less than or equal to 0.90 for normal conditions and a K-effective less than or equal to 0.95 for abnormal conditions, as defined in Section 10.3.5."
(
Pursuant to the NRC notice of proposed amendment published in the FEDERAL l
REGISTER, May 21,1985 (50 FR 20971), Mr. J. F. Doherty, of Bright!on, Massachusetts, filed a request for a hearing. The request was denied by the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and his appeal of that decision was denied by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board.- In his request Mr. Doherty expressed the concern that " operation of the spent-fuel pool at K*T$=0.95 under normal operation was hazardous..."
and that "the reduction safety margin from K still provides substantial margin to pfNe=0.90 to 0.95, the limit of 0.95
~
ct against accidental criticality underabnormalconditions..ThestaffhasacceptedaK'wf=thstaffguidance 0.95 since 1977,
(
f provided such calculations were carried out consistent t
g (Ref. 2 and 3), and there has been a substantial amount of safe operating experience at a large number of reactors with a limit of X,b=cludes thatGiving 0.95.
i due consideration to Mr. Doherty's concern, the NRC staff Ib l
the change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of i
safety.
In sunnary, the licensee's proposed change in Technical Specification 5.5.B i
is consistent with the staff's criterion and it is, therefore, acceptable.
(2) The present Pilgrim TS state the maximum fuel loading enrichment and the maximum assembly average loading of U-235 which were used in design of its spent fuel racks, but not a maximum K-infinity value. The proposed change would replace the enrichment and density of the fuel with the-corresponding maximum K-infinity of 1.35.
We have reviewed the proposed K-infinity value of less than or equal to 1.35 for an 8x8 fuel assembly with an average enrichment of 3.0 weight percent U-235, without gadolinia and water rods, for Pilgrim against accepted values for other designs and find that the proposed value is
+
4
---.,m-
-m
e y,,
..----,,-.-r._y-_-w t---
r.-.m 4-
.-----,y
,,,r-.
,------,w-
3-appropriate. Since it is equivalent to the present specificatibns and current industry and regulatory practice is to specify only the K-infinity value, the proposed change is acceptable.
2
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility i
component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may'be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public corrent on 4
such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria I
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 p
- CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
- f
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:-(1)
{
there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be. endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense
[
and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l
' Principal Contributors:
M. Dunenfeld and P. '_eech I -
t.
Dated:
5 I
REFERENCES 1.
Information Report for the Commissioners, SECY-83-337, p. 15, r
August 15, 1983.
2.
Letters to All Power Reactor Licensees from Brian K. Grimes, NRC, April 14, 1978 and January 18, 1979.
3.
NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan, Rev. 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1981.
p 9
9
-r,-+-w
. ewe e,np.,
wmr,,-
-9.n,,
y _ -,, -, -, - -
a,
,..-,.nn,--,----.w-n s,,,-
-,----m---,a
-e
,