ML20237C150

Application for Amend to License NPF-57,revising Tech Specs 3/4.2.1,3/4.3.6 & 3/4.4.1 Re Planar Linear Power Rating, Control Rod Block Instrumentation & Recirculation Sys, Respectively.Changes Support Cycle 2/Reload 1.Fee Paid

ML20237C150
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	12/14/1987
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20237C153	List: ML20237C150 ML20237C160
References
NLR-N87229, NUDOCS 8712210070
Download: ML20237C150 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e .

Pubhc Service f Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Pubhc Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Semor Vice President -

Nuclear December 14, 1987 NLR-N87229 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 In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.90, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) hereby transmits a request for amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-57 for Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS). In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed. In accordance with the requirements of 10CFR50.91(b)(1), a copy of this request has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.

This amendment request revises Technical Specifications 3/4.2.1, Average Planar Linear Power Ratio, 3/4.3.6, Control Rod Block Instrumentation, 3/4.4.1, Recirculation System, as well as the ,

associated Safety Limits and Bases. Specifically, the changes l identified in Attachment 2 are necessary to support the HCGS I Cycle 2/ Reload 1 analysis and permit the use of Extended Load l Line Limit (ELLLA) and Increased Core Flow (ICF) operation. l Attachment I contains further discussion and justification for i these proposed revisions. These changes are required prior to l startup following the refueling outage currently scheduled for April 9, 1988; hence this amendment request should be issued and effective prior to this date.

This submittal includes one (1) signed oriainal, includ ing affidavit, and thirty-seven (37) copies pursuant to 10CPR50.4(b)(2)(ii).

fooI gu!883$*4$i4 k

">,,,ssc

+

i l

1 I

Document Control Desk 2 12-14-87 )

l Should you have any questions on the subject transmittal, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, b

Enclosure (check)

Affidavit Attachments (2)

C Mr. G. W. Rivenbark USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. R. W. Borchardt USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. D. M. Scott, Chief Bureau of Nuclear Engineering Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, NJ 08628

Ref: HCGS LCR 87-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

) SS.

COUNTY OF SALEM )

Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am Senior Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated December 14, 1987, concerning Facility Operating License NPF-57 for Hope Creek Generating Station, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Subscribed and Sworna to before me this /f day of S = A , 1987 7

/M Yfhcu l' Notary Public of New Jersey LACAINE Y. BEARD l Notary Pobrc of IAw Jeney My Cornmission Expires May 1,1993 My Commission expires on i

ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE TECHNIC AL SPECIFIC ATIONS FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 HOPE CREEK GENERATING FIATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 LCR 87-19 l

I. DESCRIPTION OF THE CHANGE Revise the following Technical Specification Sections, Tables and Figures as shown in Attachment 2.

Section 2.1.2 Thermal Power, High Pressure and High Flow b$s !h!bke 02.b 2-1 bSS$Na[nk"s Used in the l

Determination of the Fuel Cladding Safety Limit Figures 3.2.1-1 and Maximum Average Planar Linear 3.2.1-2 Heat Generation Rate ( MAPLHGR) l Versus Average Planar Exposure l Section 3/4.2.3 Minimum Critical Power Ratio i ( MCPR)

Figure 3.2.3-1 MCPR Versus Tau at Rated Flow Figure 3.2.3-2 K( f) Factor

, Table 3.2.3-1 MCPR Feedwater Heating l Capacity Adjustment l Table 3.3.6-2 Control Rod Block l Instrumentation Setpoints Section 3/4.4.1 Recirculation System, Recirculettion Loops Bases 3/4.2.3 Minimum Critical Power Ratio The changes shown in Attachment 2 for the Technical Specifications listed above can be separated into three distinct categories. First are changes which address the Minimum Critical Power Ratio ( MCPR) Safety Limit as a result of changing f rom an initial core to a reload core. Second are changes to the Operating Limits required as a function of the specific analysis of Cycle 2/ Reload 1. Third are changes required for the implementation of Extended Load Li ne Li mi t ( ELLLA) and Increased Core Flow (ICF) Operation.

The reload specific changes could be considered routine, while the ELLLA/ICF changes reflect r e vi si ons which have been implemented at other operating BWR/4 plants si mila r to Hope Creek.

l II. REASON FOR THE CHANGES l The discussion provided below addresses the three categories I

of Technical Specification changes contained within this submittal.

l l

l Page 1 l

l

1. Minimum" Critical Power Ratio Safety Limit The changes to the Minimum Critical Power Ratio ( MCPR)

Saf ety Limit are required since this reload is the first reload for HCGS. The current MCPR limit of 1.06 shown in Technical Specification 2.1. 2 is used for initial cores only. The uncertainties associated with this value are shown in Technical Specification Bases Table B2.1.2-1. For reload cores, the uncertainties in the Traversing Incore Probe ( TIP) readings and the R-factor increase slightly thereby creating the slight increase in the MCPR limit from 1.06 to 1.07. The values of troertainties for both the initial and reload cores are ioend in Reference 1.

For Single Loop Operation, the uncertainties in the Core Total Flow and the TIP readings also increase slightly which in turn increases the Si ngle Loop Operation MCPR limit from 1.07 t o 1. 0 8.

These changes in the MCPR limits and their associated uncertainties have been reflected in the following Technical Specifications:

l l Saf ety Limit 2.1.2 Page 2-1 Safety Limit Bases 2. 0 Page B 2-1 Bases Table B2.1.2-1 Page B 2-3 Specification 3/4.4.1 Page 3/4 4- 1 l

2. Reload Specific Operating Limits References 2 and 3 contain the new core design and transient analyses for the HCGS Cycle 2/ Reload 1, performed by General Electric Company. These analyses indicate that the Technical Specification power distribution limits for Cycle

! 1 operation need to be revised for continued operation in Cycle 2.

The new Cycle 2 design discharges two fuel types used in the l

Cycle 1 design and replaces them with two new fuel types.

The LOCA li mi t ati ons on the power distributions are presented in Technical Specification 3/4.2.1, Average Planar Linear Hear Generation Rate. The li mi t s are expressed for each of the fuel types present in the core. With the deletion of two fuel types and their replacement with two new fuel types, the Maximum Average Planar Heat Generation Rate ( M APLHGR) curves for these bundles must be revised.

! Therefore, Figure 3.2.1-1, Initial Core Fuel Type P8CIB071, will be replaced by new Figure 3.2.1-1, Reload Fuel Type BP8CRB299HA, and Figure 3.2.1-2, I ni t i al Core Fuel Type P8CIB094, will be replaced by new Figure 3.2.1-2, Reload Fuel Type BP8CRB300L.

Page 2

I The transient analysis of the Cycle 2 design also requires I changes to Technical Specification 3/4.2.3, HCPR. The generation of new HCPR limits for HCGS Cycle 2 was done for two cycle exposure ranges. In other words, from the Beginning of Cycle ( BOC) to the End of Cycle ( EOC) minus 2000 MWD /ST, one set of limits was developed, while another set of li mi t s was been developed for EOC minus 2000 MWD /ST up to EOC. This mid-cycle MCPR analysis provides greater operational flexibility since the dominant transients in Cycle 2 are most limiting at EOC. Due to this added analysis point, less restrictive li mi t s can be used during the initial portions of the cycle. The new HCPR operating li mi t s are presented in two separate figures with one figure applicable to each of the two exposure ranges instead of the current single figure for the entire cycle.

Therefore, the wording of Specification 3/4.2.3, including the associated Action Statement and Surveillance Requirement, have been changed to reflect the two options, and Figure 3.2.3-1 will be replaced with new Figures 3.2.3-1 and 3.2.3-2. Finally, the current Figure 3.2.3-2, K( f)

Factor will be retained although renumbered as Figure 3.2.3-3 with the changes as discussed in the next section on ELLLA/ICF operation License Condi tion 2. C( 11) to Facility Operating License NPF-57 states:

The facility shall not be operated with reauced feedwater temperature for the purpose of extending the normal fuel cycle. After the first operating cycle, the facility shall not be operated with a feedwater heating capacity that would result ig a rated power feedwater temperature less than 400 F unless analyses supporting such operation are submitted by the licensee and approved by the staff.

Since HCGS Cycle 2 will no longer be the first operating cycle, the wording of Specification 3/4.2.3, including the Action Statement and Surveillance Requirement, has bgen revised to remove the o7 tion of operating below 400 F.

Table 3.2.3-1 whi c h re pc.rt g t he feedwater temperature MCPR adjustments for below JJO F operation has been deleted.

3. Extended Load Line Limit and Increased Core Flow Reference 4 contains the nalysis performed by General Electric Company in suppot' of expanding the operating domain of HCGS. This referanced report describes the analyses performed to justify operation of HCGS above the ,

100% Load Line and up to 105% of Rated Core Flow. j l

1 Page 3 1

l .

l The required Technical Specification changes for implementation of the expanded operating domain are centered around the Increased Core Flow (ICF) operation. The K( f)

Factor curve in the Technical Specifications for MCpR, currently Figure 3.2.3-2, must be modified so that the range of Core Flow extends up to the 110% Rated Core Flow instead of the current range of 100%. This change in the range is justified in Reference 4.

Technical Specification Table 3.3.6-2 discusses the Control Rod Block Instrumentation Setpoints. The Upscale Setpoints for the Rod Block Monitor are dependent en the recirculation flow. Since this flow will exceed the currently rated recirculation flow during ICF operation, the s e t poi n t needs to be clamped at the 100% recirculation flow value. The reanalysis of the Rod Withdrawl Error transient shown in Reference 4 has assumed this 100% recirculation setpoint for ICF operation.

Technical Specification Table 3.3.6-2 also shows the rod block generated by the Reactor Coolant S" stem Recirculation Flow. Since operation in the ICF region will exceed the current rated recirculation flow, the Upscale Rod Block Setpoint has been increased to prevent spurious control rod blocks when operating in the ICF region; however, ample protection from rod withdrawl at greater than analyzed recirculation flows is still provided.

Surveillance Requirement 4.4.1.1.3 for the Recirculation Loops is also changed to reflect the ability to operate at greater than currently rated recirculation flow. The Motor Generator ( MG) set mechanical and electrical s ',o p s have been increased in order to physically allow for increased core flow.

III. SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS ANALYSIS CONSIDERATION The proposed changes to the HCGS Technical Specifications:

(1) Do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The limiting overpressurization transients in the HCGS Final Safety Analysis Report ( FS AR) , Chapter 15, have been analyzed for their impact on the Operating Li mi t MCpR.

The results of these analyses indicate that the Operating Limit MCpR should be increased to the values shown in the marked-up Figures 3.2.3-1 and 3.2.3-2 in order to use the Cycle 2 core design. This analysis also accounts for operation in the ICF region which requires a 0.01 HCpR penalty to the operating li mi t at the EOC. Since the analysis differs only in the reload of the core and in the initial conditions of core flow rate, not the initiating circumstances, the probability of an overpressurization Page 4

~

! l event occurring does not increase. With the increase in the )

l Operating Limit MCPR, which was prepared with the new Safety Li mi t MCPR proposed in the enclosed changes, the analyzed

{ transients will not violate the MCPR Safety Limit; and l 'therefore, the consequences of the overpressurization event l are not increased.

l l ( 2) Does not create the possibility of a new or different l

kind of accident from any accident previously i evaluated. The creation of a new or different ki nd of accident from any previously evaluated accident is not l considered possible because no hardware modifications are l being made other than the reload of the core. The core l reload is of a fuel design similar to that of the initial core and previously evaluated and approved as detailed in Reference 1. The safety analysis that was performed only assumed a different kind of fuel loading and different initial conditions of core flow for ELLLA and ICF operation neither of which creates the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

( 3) Does not involve a significant reduction in a m6rgin of safety. The analysis provided within this submittal q have recalculated the delta-CPR of the li mi t i ng overpressurization transients f or HCGS assuming the new initial conditions of core flow and new fuel loading. These ,

new delta-CPR calculations, along with the current HCGS FSAR J safety analyses, have provided re vi si ons to the Opereting Li mi t MAPLHGR curves and Operating Limit MCPR for EOC-RPT operable or inoperable. Operation with respect to these revised limits will insure that the margin of safety for the HCGS Cycle 2 Fuel Cladding Safety Limits will be maintained.

I V. CONCLUSIONS PSE&G concludes that this amendment request conforms to Example (iii) for Amendments That Are Not Likely To Involve A Significant Hazards Considerations ( published in Federal Register Volume 51, Number 44, dated March 6, 1986) because this request results from a reload where "no fuel assemblies tare) significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a pr e vi ous core." Additionally, Example ( i v) is applicable for ELLLA/ICF operation in that this type of operation has been demonstrated acceptable at other BWR/4 facilities.

Based upon the comparison provided above, the information detailed in Sections II and III of this submittal and the referenced reports identified below. PSE&G concludes that these proposed changes to the HCGS Technical Specifications do not involve a Si gni fi cant Hazards Consideration.

Page 5

1

w. Y\  !

(

',)'

1 v f, 1

y ,

V. REFERENp,J1 ( ~

4,

, -j q 3 7 ,

The followi>/c' references are proprietary in nature and therefore provided under separate covevi , f, .j d/

o i il

1. General Electric Standard Appli c a t i on f or Reac t'or . F uel,' +

GESTAR.f1, Uni t.e d States Supplement, General Electric Company, NEDE-24011-P-A-US, Table 3.2-1. ,

2. Su r plement al Reload Licenging Submittal for Hope Creek ,

Ga rierati ng . St ati on Uni t i koload 1 (Cycle 2), Genercl Electric Company, 23A585c, Revision 1. n

\. I I' 4

3. Supplement fi,to Supplemental Reload Licensing Sub'ittSi m for Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1, Reload'One, 'S General Electric Company, 23A5854AA Supplement 1.

y

4. Increased Core Flow and Extended Load Line Li mi t i

'* Analysis for Hope Creek Generating Station Unit 1

, Cycle 2, General Electric Company, NEDC-31,487( (, ,

)

(

/

I I

,qs

% l l

\'

f

. /.

,j

/ ,

9

\

! y ,'

.i 1

/

1 I 1

) ,

(>

4

[

Page 6 d l