ML20216A853
| ML20216A853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216A832 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706260398 | |
| Download: ML20216A853 (3) | |
Text
y< '
)
k'.
? UNITED STATES.-
- 8
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' n
y, R-WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
.....l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGUL'ATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS. 80 AND 54 TO FACILITY OPERATING L
LICENSE NOS. DPR-70 AND DPR-75 PUBLICSERVICEELECTRIC&GASCOMPAQ PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC' COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND' LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated.0ctober 3. 1986 and supplemented by letter dated October 10, 1986, Public Service Electric & Gas Company.recuested an amendment to Facility Operating License.Nos. DPR-70 and DPR-75.for the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2..
The proposed _ amendments would delete the specified maximum fuel rod weight limit to allow current fuel
'to_be in compliance with the Salem 1 and 2 Technical Specifications.
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. The licensee's supplementary submittal of October 10, 1986 corrected the wording of Section 5.3.1 and did not contain substantive changes.
Further, this issue has previously been reviewed by the staff, where F
.this value was deleted from the Farley Unit 2 Technical Specifications as part of Amendment No. 56, dated April 22, 1986.
2.0L EVALUATION 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 87062 g % h p
.P
r; -
3 4.
Eh r.
d decay 1 heat production.
Fuel rod weight does not have any direct bear'ing
'on'the power limits, power' operating level' or. decay heat. rate. The j
composition of the fuel is. closely monitored to assure acceptable fuel performance. 'The fuel weight changes that could be made without Technical. Specification limit are not of sufficient magnitude to cause i
a significant. difference in fuel performance. There are no expected
']
observable changes in nonnal operation due to_ the noted fuel rod weight
~
changes, end the. remaining fuel parameters listed in the Technical j
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 tolerances, in which case the changes in the fuel rod weight are
?
relatively insignificant. Changes in'n] clear Design resulting from fuel
. rod weight changes are controlled as discussed above. For these, i
changes, the effect on new and spent fuel criticality and fuel handling analyses remain-bounded by the exist'ing analyses and Technical-Specification Design. Feature limits.
Fuel-handling equipment and procedures are not affected by conservatism to bound 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.
Based on the above, the staff concludes the change is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ~ CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility com)onent located within the restricud area'as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. -Tie staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no signi-ficant, change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant incrt:ase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission _has previously' issued a j
[
proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendments meet the-eligibility criterie for categorical i
exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22fc)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
' 4.0 CONCLilSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve
- no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 11372)'on April 8,1987 and consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.
i l
=
.El
. o._
The staff has concluded,. based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of i
.the p(2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with theublic will and Consnission's regulations and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and safety of the public.
l
. Principal Contributor: Donald Fischer Dated: June 19, 1987-b