ML20248B889
| ML20248B889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248B878 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910030324 | |
| Download: ML20248B889 (4) | |
Text
- _ - - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _
, ',/".
".8%,%,
UNITED STATES
}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\..../
+
SAFFTY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.33 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC &. GAS. COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET.NO. 50-354 t
I.0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 21, 1989, and as supplemented by letter dated September 11, 1989, Public Service Electric & Gas Company requested an amendment on an exigent basis, to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 for the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS). The proposed amendment would remove the description of specific fuel assembly.and control rod design features and replace it with a more generic description.
2.0 EVALUATION l
Section 5.3.1 currently describes a specific fuel assembly design. The i
proposed change removes the specific fuel assembly design and replaces it
~
l with a more generic description but still requires that the fuel assembly l
be one that has been approved for use in BWRs.
The core operating limits in use by HCGS are determined by General Electric Standard Applications for Reactor Fuel (GESTAR II), which is NRC approved. Since NRC approval l
of GESTAR II is based on review of the specific fuel assembly designs l
described therein, HCGS will be continuing to use fuel assemblies that have been pre-approved by the NRC; any use of analytical methodologies and/or fuel designs that are not within the scope of the latest approved
]
version of GESTAR II would require an amendment request.
l The proposed changes to Section 5.3.2 are analogous to those of Section l
5.3.1 discussed above. HCGS inte.,ds to replace some of the existing 1
control rod blades with compatible hafnium tipped control rod blades l
supplied by ABB-ATOM during the second refueling outage which have been l
generically approved for use by the NRC.
3.0 EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
j The Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 50.91,.provides special exceptions for issuance of amendments when the usual 30-day public notice period cannot be met. One type of special exception is an exigency. An exigency i
l is a case in which the staff and licensee need to act quickly and time i
does not permit the Commission to publish a Federal Register notice 8910030324 890927 PDP ADOCK 05000354 P
FDC
_-_______-_-_---__A
l
.q.
i I
allowing 30 days for prior public comment, and the Consnission also det?rmines that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations.
In this instance, the need for the Commission and the licensee to act prior to loading fuel is clearly established by the fact that the current Technical Specifications do not describe the types of fuel and control rod assemblies that will be installed. This amendment is being issued three days prior to the expiration of the 15-day notice period to prevent a day-for-day delay in fuel load and subsequent plant restart and power production.
l The Commission has determined that the licensee acted promptly by initially applying for a change to this section of the Technical 1
Specifications on May 18, 1989, and, when told in August 1989 to refile that change request as two separate amendments and to alter the wording of the original submittal, acted in a timely manner and submitted this q
change request on August 21, 1989. The staff finds that the acts of the
{
licensee did not deliberately or negligently cause the exigent situation j
to come into being. Failure of the Commission to act on the licensee request would result in a delay in fuel load and subsequent plant restart and power production; and therefore the request should be approved under the exigency provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6)(vi).
4.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION CONSIDERATION-The Ctanission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists (10 CFR 50.92(c)). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request and concurs with the i
following basis and conclusion provided by the licensee in its August 21, 2
1989 submittal.
The proposed changes to the HCGS Technical Specifications:
1.
Do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences t
of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed revision to section 5.3.1 will enable HCGS to change
- 4 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.
l i
- .~
3 l
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 approved by the NRC on a generic basis._ The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation that will be performed prior to control bla(- 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 continue to assure that the control rods are 0?ERABLE, with acceptable scram times. The NRC approved methodology of ABB-ATOM will be applied specifically to HCGS.
Therefore, PSE&G has concluded that this amendment request does not j
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.
NRC appro'ved methodologies and fuel / control rod designs will be required for use in HCGS and plant specific evaluations pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 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.
3.
Do not involve a 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 I
II, which have been previously approved by the NRC. These methods j
will set the limiting parameters for. core operation such that the i
Safety Limits as defined by the Technical Specifications and UFSAR safety analyses are not challenged. The removal of specific design information from sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of 'the Technical Specifications does not result in a reduction in the margin of safety since NRC approved methodologies are still applied te reactor j
core design. Design changes are still subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.
Therefore, this amendment request does not involve a significant il l
reduction in a margin of safety as defined in the basis for any l
Technical Specifications.
Based on the above considerations, including the staff's safety
- I evaluation, the staff concludes that the amendment meets the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92 for a no significant hazards determination.
t Therefore, the staff has made a final determination that the proposed amendment involves a no significant hazards consideration.
l
1 i
4
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR q
51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment i
need be prepered in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves i
no significant hazards consideration which was' published in the Federal Register (54 FR 37052) on September 6, 1989 and published again as a request for exigent treatment (54 FR 38306) on September 15, 1989 and consulted with the State of New Jersey. No public coments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any coments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) because the requested changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, do not create the possibility of an accident of"a type different from any evaluated previously, and do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and 1
safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed 1
manner, and (3) such activities.will be conducted in compliance with the I
Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Shiraki i
Dated:
September 27, 1989
--