ML20246D251

Application for Amend to License NPF-57,revising Tech Specs 3/4.2,B3/4.2,5.3.1 & 5.3.2 Re Guidance for Removal of Fuel cycle-specific Operating Limits Per Generic Ltr 88-16

ML20246D251
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	08/21/1989
From:	Miltenberger S Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20246D254	List: ML20246D251 ML20246D256
References
GL-88-16, LCR-89-16, NLR-N89161, NUDOCS 8908250303
Download: ML20246D251 (6)

Text

.

f-

• ny Public Service Dectric and Gas Cornpr4ny Cleven E. Miltenberger Pubhc Service Eiectric and Gas Cornpany P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge. NJ 08038 609-339-4199 vee heuoent and ctue Muew omcer August 21, 1989 NLR-N89161

Reference:

LCR 89-16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

REVISED REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57 HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 In a letter dated May 18, 1989, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57, Technical Specifications (TS) Sections 3/4.2, B3/4.2, 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The amendment request (LCR 89-12) was based upon guidance for removal of fuel cycle-specific operating limits from the TS as provided by NRC Generic Letter 88-16. Since the intent of the Generic Letter was to alleviate the burden on NRC and licensee resources associated with the processing of changes to cycle specific parameter limits that are developed according to NRC approved methodologies, PSE&G included, in that request, .several changes to TS Design Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 which contain constraints on core design configuration.

In subsequent discussions, NRC staff indicated that only changes directly covered by Generic Letter 88-16 should be in the change request dealing with removal of cycle-specific operating limits

, from the POWER DISTRIBUTION section of TS and that all other TS

• modifications should be submitted separately. This transmittal (LCR 89-16) contains those portions of LCR 89-12 to which the NRC e staff determined the Generic Letter does not directly apply. The

_p8 modifications in this request LCR 89-16 are identical to the rdoa changes previously requested in LCR 89-12 to TS Sections 5.3.1 and

.$8 5.3.2 with the exception of minor wording changes as suggested by

[f@ NRC staff.

13 6 Since the modifications shown in Attachment 1 do not involve any

,.[y@ further technical issues, adding only improved wording and j04 clarification to our previous request, the supporting information l$ and analyses for the change, and the basis for a no significant 1

R$ hazards consideration determination, previously provided, remain maA applicable. PSE&G, therefore, believes that this submittal of a g (

l portion of our previously submitted amendment request does not add l any new consideration that would require additional public notice.

a- __

l Document Control Desk ,

08-21-89 i NLR-N89161 f

J Upon NRC approval of this prcposed change, PSE&G requests that the amendment be made effective on the date of issuance, but implementable within sixty days to provide sufficient time for associated procedural modifications.

Pursuant to 10CFR50.4 (b) (2) (ii) , this submittal includes one (1) signed original and thirty-seven (37) copies and, in accordance with 10CFR50.91(b) (1) , PSE&G has provided a copy to the State of New Jersey.

Should you have any questions regarding this request, we will be  !

pleased to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,

/ 16cw -'L b L(.v A Attachments Affidavit C Mr. W. T. Russell, Administrator USNRC Region I Mr. C. Y. Shiraki USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. G. W. Meyer USNRC Senior Resident Inspector Mr. K. Tosch, Chief, Bureau of Nuclear Engineering New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection l

l 1

l 1

-- mm - .m._

5.-;g ,

v:c  ;- t , .; \

c '

LJ $

, a

u r

?

11

,, REF: NLR-N89161 1

.j

,1 4

,'j STATE:OF NEW. JERSEY- -) 3

? ..

-) SS.  ;

COUNTY OF SALEM < ) >.

.l Steven"E. Miltenberger, being duly sworn.according to' law deposes.,

and says* ,

,-i i

~

I am Vice~ President and Chief Nuclear Officer of Public Service -< l Electric.and Gas Company, and as such,.I-find.the matters-set

'forth in our letter: dated . August ' 21,1989 ., concerning.the, Hope _ Creek' Generating Station, are true to the.best of:my.

knowledge, information and belief. j d

1

. a

/

p p g l l

Subscribed and Sworn to before me

.this'_)/h

/

day of JX8//

v d , 1989

'l

• 1 Notary Public of New Jersey 1

-1

-1 DtIEW M. OCH$ i WOTARY PUWJC 9F NEW JHtSEY My' Commission expires on g& -r, p Lt in;taof l::

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____U

9;, .<-

[s W'

ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED CHANGE TO-THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS HOPE CREEK' GENERATING STATION FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-57'

. DOCKET NO. 50-354 LCR'89-16

,; I.. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES l:

. Revise Technical Specifications 5.'3.1, " Fuel Assemblies" and.

5.3.2,." control RodLAssemblies" to agree with the marked-up pages o in Attachment-2.

II. REASON FOR THE. PROPOSED CHANGES i This amendment request will make possible the use of fuel and control rod assembly designs that have been reviewed and approved by the NRC without the need for Technical Specification ,

amendments when design improvements in those areas are made'in  !

accordance with NRC approved methodologies.

III. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES Section 5.3.1 currently contains a description of the .

configuration of the fuel assemblies presently in use at HCGS. ,

The' proposed changes to section 5.3.1 will remove reference to some specific fuel assembly design features and require that fuel -

assemblies be of a design approved by NRC. PSE&G uses core operating limits as determined by NRC-approved General Electric Standard Application For Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II). Since NRC approval of GESTAR II is based on-review of the specific fuel assembly designs described therein, PSE&G will continue to use fuel assemblies that have been pre-approved by the NRC; any use of analytical methodologies and/or fuel designs that are not j within the scope of the most latest approved version of GESTAR II j would require an amendment request. Therefore, PSE&G believes J that the proposed revision to section 5.3.1 is administrative in l nature.

]

l The proposed changes to section 5.3.2, " Control Rod Assemblies," )

are analagous to the proposed changes to section 5.3.1 discussed j above. PSE&G' intends to replace some of the existing HCGS control blades with compatible hafnium tipped control blades supplied by ABB-ATOM during the second refueling outage. These .

control blades have been generically approved for use by the NRC ]

via references 1 and 2.

_ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

q{t ' , ...

Upon-NRCLapproval~of.this LCR, a plant specific evaluation of the a <

new control' blades will_be completed and documented under.the

' provisions ofi10CFR50.59. .This evaluation will address the

compatibility of the:new~ control rod blades.with the existing.

blades. . ABB-ATOM control blades have been successfully installed under_ the provisions of-10CFR50.59 at'other-U.S. BWRs (e.g.,

LaSalle).

IV . - NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION EVALUATION The proposed. changes to the HCGS Technical Specifications:

1. Ik) not involve a,significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The proposed revision to section 5.3.1 will enable HCGS to change fuel assemblies without a. license amendment. The core operating limits will still be based on the NRC approved methodology of GESTAR II. Since NRC approval of GESTAR II is predicated on review of specific fuel assembly designs, HCGS will still be using NRC approved fuel designs.

The proposed revision to Section 5.3.2_will allow HCGS to use ABB-ATOM hafnium tipped control blades as replacements for the existing General Electric control blades. These control blades have been previously apr oved by the NRC on a generic basis. The 10CFR50.59 evaluation that will be l performed prior to control blade replacement will address any plant specific concerns and will assure that the probability or consequences of an accident will not be increased. The requirements of specification 3/4.1.3 will i L continue to assure that the control rods are OPERABLE, with I acceptable scram times. The NRC approved methodology of I ABB-ATOM will be applied specifically to HCGS. l Therefore, PSE&G has concluded that this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. Do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

)

i NRC approved methodologies and fuel /centrol rod designs will- l be required for use in HCGS and plant specific evaluations pursuant to 10CFR50.59 will be performed for each fuel cycle. The fuel bundles, control rod assemblies and related operating limits used at HCGS will remain bounded by the current UFSAR accident analyses.

Therefore, PSE&G has concluded that this amendment request does not introduce any new or different kind of accident from those previously evaluated. j l-1 1

_1_____

mt .  ; i lo , > c. .  !

I c j 19{- ,

i Y

i

3. Do.not~involveca significant reduction in a margin-of safety.

~

The core. operating limits which are affected by the fuel and control rod assemblies will. continue-to be done using.the

' methods of GESTAR II, which have been previously approved by -

the NRC. These methods'will set the limiting parameters for  ::

coreloperation such that.the Safety. Limits as defined by the j Technical Specifications and-UFSAR safety analyses are not j challenged. The removal ofrspecific design information from '

sections 5.3.11and 5.3.2 of the-Technical Specifications.  !

.does not result inia reduction Lin the margin of~ safety since  !

NRC approved'methodologiesiare still applied to reactor core -!

design. Design changes,are still subject to the provisions i of'10CFR50.59. j 1

Therefore,'this amendment 1 request does not involve.a significant reduction in a margin of safety as defined in c 'the-basisifor any Technical Specification. .

j

'I V .' CONCLUSION d

As discussed above, PSE&G has concluded that the proposed changes  ;

oto the HCGS Technical Specifications do not involve a significant hazards consideration since the changes:~(i) do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (ii) do not create the possibility of a new or.different kind of accident from any previously.

evaluated, and (iii).do not involve a significant' reduction in a.

margin'of' safety. j VI. REFERENCES *

1) TR'UR 85-225-A, Topical Report for ASEA ATOM BWR Control 4 Blades for U.S. BWRs. j

2) TR UR 85-225-A, Supplement 1, Topical Report for ASEA ATOM j BWR Control Blades for U.S. BWRs.  !

)

- _ _ _ _ ___ _______ _______ _ ____ _ .