ML20205M626

Application for Amend to License NPF-57,revising Tech Specs 5.6.3 to Accomodate Addition of One Rack of Same Design as Originally Described in Fsar.Fee Paid

ML20205M626
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	10/26/1988
From:	Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20205M631	List: ML20205M626 ML20205M634
References
NUDOCS 8811030169
Download: ML20205M626 (7)

Text

'. .

. Pubbc Service Electric and Gas Company Steven E. Miltenberger . , Service E:ectric and Ga3 Company P.O. Box 236, Hancoc As Brdge, NJ 08038 609-339 4199 v<e res.w ra cw um ove' October 26, 1988 1

NLR - N88178 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby submits a request to amend Appendix A of Facility Operating License No.

NPF-57 in accordance with 10CFR50.90. This amendment request revises Technical Specifications Design Section 5.6.3, Spent Fuel Storage Capacity, to accommodate the addition of one rack of the same design as originally described in the FSAR.

PSE&G h's catermined that the proposed amendment does not involve a signi- ant hazards consideration pursuant to 10CFR50.92. A description of the amendment request and the basis for a no significant hazards consideration determination is provided in Attachment 1. The proposed revised technical specification changes are shown in Attachment 2.

The requested increase in allowed spent fuel storage capacity:

a. consists of placing an additional rack of the original design on the spent fuel pool floor; e

ayn b. does not, involve rod consolidation or double tiering; g4 c. does not reselt in the Kegg of the pool exceeding 0.95; and,

$3

$2f d. will utilize no new or unproven technology in the T!8 construction process or analytical techniques necessary gt to justify the expansion.

5 Since, in addition to the above, there ara no complex issues ma$ a involved with this requast that would prevent the Project Manager from conducting the review, PSE&G believes that the proposed amendment can be classified as a Cutogory 2 change in ac ordance with the new NRC Amendment Review Procedure. {

f " 'U/;.yA

1 Document Control Desk 2 10-26-88 PSE&G requests issuance of this license change by June 1,1989 to accomodate our present refueling schedules.

A check for S150.00 is enclosed in payment of the 10CFR170.21 license amendment application fee. Additionally, in accordance with 10CFR50.91(b)(1), a copy of this amendment request has been sont to the State of New Jersey.

Pursuant to 10CFRSO.4(b)(2)(ii), this submittal includes one (1) signed original and thirty-seven (37) copies. Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, rW f Enclosure / Attachments l Affidavit i C Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator l USt4RC Region I i

Mr. G. W. Rivenbark i USNRC Licensing Project Manager I

Mr. G. W. Meyer USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Ms. J . Moon, Interim Chief New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Nuclear Engineering CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08628

l REF: LCR 88-03 i

STATE OF NEW JERSEY )  !

) SS.  !

COUNTY OF SALEM )  ;

Steven E. Miltenberger, being duly sworn according to law deposes 1 and says:

1 I am Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Public Service l Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set i forth in our letter dated October 26, 1988 , concerning the I Hope Creek Generating Station, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

jh A Ls,M th L

/

l Gubscribed and Sworn to before me l this c7dU day of OI/ddL , 1988 WM Odo Notary Public of New Jersey til d M M . 0 ;H 5

)

NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW JER$EY My Commisden Espkes My 16,1H2 l My Commission expires on ,

I I

I i

i

ATTACHMENT 1 4

PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 Ref. LCR 88-03 I. Identification of the Proposed _ Chance Revise the spent fuel storage capacity limitation presently 1 stated in Technical Specifications, Design Features Section  !

5.6.3 to read, "The spent fuel storage pool shall be -

limited to.a storage capacity of no more than 1290 fuel assemblies."

II. Justification for the Chance i

Technical Specification 5.6.3 presently limits spent fuel storage capacity to 1108 fuel assemblies. This limit was based on the installed storage capacity at the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) at the time that the Operating License and Technical Specifications were issued and not on the design storage capacity of 4006 arsemblies as described .

in FSAR Section 9.1.2.2.2.2. The current restrictive limit '

on storage capacity eft ~ectively prohibits continued ,

operation of HCGS by not providing core offload capability '

for fuel loaded beyond the second fuel cycle.

The requested change, while not increasing storage capacity l to the plant design limit, will permit toe installation of an additional storage rack to accommodate the third fuel cycle. Fuel cycle design changes beyond the third cycle, currently under rev8.ew rayarding cycle length and fuel l enrichments, may ,;equire a reanalysis and redesign of the

• storage racks. Aty future modifications to the Technical Specifications brought about by a new fuel cycle strategy will be submitted, along with attendant fuel cycle design

, changes, for NRC approval.

III. Sionificant Hazards Consideration Analysis Criterion 1

• For the current, and cycle 3 fuel designs, the criticality, seismic, structural and thermal / hydraulic analyses remain bounded by the assumptions and calculations provided in the FSAR. The FSAR analyses verified that the criticality factor, Kegg, will remain below 0.95, assuming the use of 3.4 weight percent U235, and that the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Residual Heat Removal systems are based on a design heat load of 16.1 x 106 Btu /hr (16 consecutive refuelings) and on a maximum heat load of 34.2 x 106 Btu /hr (f ull core of f-load af ter 13 previous ref uelings) .

Rof. LCR 88-03

• r Sionificant Hazards Consideration Analysis (Cont'd) r These design heat removal capabilities are adequate for our conservatively calculated heat loads of 11.9 x 106 Btu /hr  ;

(2nd refueling) and 30.1 x 106 Btu /hr (full core offload af ter 2 previous refuelings) introduced by our requested .

increase in spent fuel storage capacity.  !

Additionally, the racks, themselves, which are passive components that do not interface with or impact plant equipment other than the fuel pool floor, will remain ,'

seismically acceptable. The existing racks, as well as the one to be added, are free-standing... anchored to neither the fuel pool floor, the walls, nor to adjacent racks. '

i Therefore, the proposed change, which will permit the [

installation of an additional rack to bring spent fuel  ;

storage up to 1290 assemblies (roughly 1/3 of original [

design capacity), will not increase the probability or i consequences of any accident or malfunction of equipment , [

4 important to safety. '

] I I

Criteria II  ;

There is no change to plant equipment, procedures, or  ;

operating parameters from those described in the FSAR. l This change increases spent fuel storage capacity limits f in the Design Section of the Technical Specifications while (

, assuring that the number of racks remains well within

original design capacity.  !

! t Since: [

j - the main and auxiliary hoists of the reactor building [

j polar crane are single-f ailure proof, j

- the rack module fixture, also single-failure proof, l l is adequately designed to support the new rack i installation, l

l - a safe load path is designated for the installation  ;

the new rack which specifically avoids movement over i existing stored spent fuel (see Fig. 9.1-32 sht. 4 l

]

in the UFSAR), and t I

l

- the proposed change involves the installation of a l fuel storage rack that is identical to the original- f design racks already installed,  ;

}  !

the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or L l

malfunction of equipment important to safety from any  :

1 previously evaluated is not created. l l

2-  ;

. - _ - . . _ _ _ . . , _ _ . . , _ _ - _ - _ - - . .._._,-,_,.___.,_m__-,___- ______.--_----.,,t

r Ref. LCR 88-03 Sionificant Hazards Consideration Ananlysis (Cont'd)

Criteria III Since the spent fuel storage analyses, in Section 9.1.2 of <

the FSAR, describes heat removal capabilities of the Spent '

Fuel Pool Cooling and Residual Heat Removal systems that exceed the capacities necessary to support the heat loads  ;

attendant to the increase in spent fuel storage to 1290 assemblies introduced by this request, and the seismic, structural and criticality considerations remain bounded by  !

our original analyses, the proposed change does not involve l a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

Based on the above, we have determined that thi.s proposed change to the Design Features section of the Technical  :

i Specifications does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration. Additionally, we suggest that this change conforms to example (x) of the guidance provided by the Commission in 51 FR 7751 of the Federal Register for Amendments Not Likely To Involve A Significant Hazards donsideration.

i l

l

[

f i

l \

. r 4

i, 1

1 l

l l

J Attachment 2 Revised Technical Specification Pages 4

l.

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - .