ML18092A464

Application for Amend to License DPR-75,changing Tech Spec Figure 3.1-1,Section 3.2.3, Power Dependent Insertion Limit Requirements. Fee Paid

ML18092A464
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	01/11/1985
From:	Liden E Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18092A465	List: ML18092A464 ML18092A466
References
LCR-84-10, NUDOCS 8501220379
Download: ML18092A464 (5)

Text

• • J '

Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Nuclear Department Ref: LCR-84-10 January 11, 1985 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operations Reactors Branch 1 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:

REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES UNIT NO. 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and the regulations thereunder, we hereby transmit copies of our request for amendment and our analyses of the changes to Facility Operating License DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit No. 2.

This amendment request consists of a revision to Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Section 3.2.3, Power Dependent Insertion Limit requirements, Figure 3.1-1.

In accordance with the fee requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.

8501220379 850111 PDR ADOCK 05000311 p PDR

,,91.00

~(!..~~ \JJ~"'C.11-The Energy People 95-2168 (25M) 6-84

Mr. Steven A. Varga 1/11/85 This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies.

Sincerely,

!~Manager - Nuclear Licensing and Regulation Enclosure C Mr. Donald C. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. James Linville Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Frank Cosolito, Acting Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, New Jersey 08628 Honorable Charles M. Oberly, III Attorney General of the State of Delaware Department of Justice 820 North French Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801

Ref: LCR-84-10 STATE OF NEW JERSEY )

) ss: COUNTY OF SALEM COUNTY OF SALEM )

RICHARD A. UDERITZ, being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:

I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our Request for Amendment dated January 11, 1985, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

~~~

RICHARD A*. UD§"°RITZ ;,fr Subscribed and sworn to before me this I J tJ.., day of ~e<..a~ , 1985 Notary Public of New Jersey i:mmm G. mTCl-lNER NOTl\RY PUBLIC OF NEW JERSEY My Comm i s s ion exp ires o n_ _JJM<!Jv'"-'C~o"-'-m"""m'"'"'.is::..::.s:.;:.io.:..:..n=E:~zp..:...ir..:...es=-~-Aa_r_ch_2_4..:...,_19_8_7_ __

Ref: . LCR 84-10 PROPOSED TECH. SPEC. CHANGE POWER DEPENDENT INSERTION LIMITS SALEM GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 2 Description of Change The R_ower Dependent Insertion Limit (PDIL) change requires an increase of the Salem Unit ~ rod insertion capability to match that of the curr~nt Unit 1 limits. The current and proposed PDIL for Unit 2 are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Reason for Change

• Prior to the startup of Unit 2, Cycle 2, the PDIL's were changed to comply with the Fh limits given in Tech. Spec.

Section 3.2.3 and to maintain acceptable power peaking factors for Cycle 2 operation.* The cycle 2 reload design necessitated the reduction of rod insertion limits. The limits*were made more restrictive and thus resulted in a decrease in operational flexibility~ The cycle 2 design identified the need to revise the control rod pattern (bank grouping).

To allevi~te the above lack of flexibility, the cycle 3 reload design is based on a revised control rod pattern which closely*approximates the current Unit 1 control rod pattern. The design change request to reidentify control banks is being implemented during cycle 2-3 refueling outage, under the provisions of 10CFRS0.59. The benefits a~sociated w{th the revised rod pattern are a~ follows:

1. Reduces the maximum hot channel enthalpy rise factors during reactor maneuvers.

2. Provides a significant increase in operational flexibility by allowing an increase of the rod insertion limits.

Therefore, to take advantage of the irtcreased flexibility identified in the cycle 3 RSE Report, the PDIL should be changed to allow a relaxation of the Unit 2 rod insertion requirements to match that of the current Unit 1 limits.

Significant Hazards Consideration It has been determined that the LCR invol~es no significant hazards consideration under 10CFRS0.92.

The purpose of the power dependent rod insertion limits is threefold. First, rod insertion is limited in order

to ensure acceptable power distributions; second, to maintain minimum shutdown margin; and third, to minimize the effects of postulated rod ejection accident. Cycle specific calcula-tions are performed to evaluate and determine the power dependent insertion limits required to satisfy the above three requirements.

A Reload Safety Evaluation (RSE) for cycle 3 has been performed by-Westinghouse (Reference 1) and reviewed by PSE&G to deter-mine the impact of less restrictive (i.e. deeper) rod insertion limits. The results of the Westinghouse RSE show that the proposed limits do not cause the previously acceptable safety limits for any incident to be exceeded. PSE&G has reviewed this analysis and concurs with the Westinghouse~conclusions.

The PSE&G review consisted of performing an independent reload safety evaluation for cycle 3 using in-house computer codes, and it resulted in the determination that the current safety analysis design bases continue to be met. Operation of Salem Unit 2 in accordance with the proposed power dependent insertion limits:

0 would not involve a sigriificant increase in the proba-bility or consequences of an accident previously evaluated for Salem Unit 2, since the proposed change in PDIL showed that the current core safety limits were still applicable.

0 in no way creates the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated for Salem Unit 2, since no plant modifications resulted from this change.

0 does not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

0 is clearly within all acceptable criteria specified in the Standard Review Plan.

Based on the above evaluation we have determined that the proposed change in PDIL corresponds to example (vi) of guidance provided by the Commission in Federal Register 48FR 14870 for Amendments Likely To Not Involve Significant Hazards Consideration.

References

1. Reload Safety Evaluation for Salem Unit 2, Cycle 3; December 1984, Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Division, M. M. Weber, A. N. Piplica, E. F. Pulver, M. E. Pohlman.