ML18092B310
| ML18092B310 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1986 |
| From: | Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group |
| To: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18092B311 | List: |
| References | |
| LCR-86-09, LCR-86-9, NLR-N86137, NUDOCS 8610150451 | |
| Download: ML18092B310 (5) | |
Text
1 Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeil!, Jr.
Vice President -
Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Nuclear October 3, 1986 NLR-N86137 REF:
LCR 86-09 Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, MD 20014 Attention:
Mr. Steven A. Varga, Director PWR Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing A Gentlemen:
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-70 AND DPR -75 SALEM GENERATING STATION -
UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 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-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2.
The amendment consists of additions to Section 5.3.1 which would allow limited replacement of a limited number of fuel pins with filler rods or vacancies provided the replacement is acceptable per the results of the cycle specific reload analysis performed for each refueling.
Enclosed is a check in the amount of $150.00 as required by 10 CFR 170. 21.
Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below.
This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies.
r--s1J10T5045C 861003 PDR ADOCK 05000272 L
p PDR
Mr. Steven A. Varga 2
10-3-86 Should there be any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely, C
Mr. D. C. Fischer USNRC Licensing Project Manager Mr. T. J. Kenny USNRC Senior Resident Inspector
Ref :
LCR 8 6- 0 9 STATE OF NEW JERSEY COUNTY OF SALEM
)
)
)
SS.
Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., being duly sworn according to law deposes and says:
I am Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated Oct. 3, 1986, concerning our Request for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75, are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Subscri~ and Sworn to/l}efore me this )
day of t}-r;~, 1986 LARAINE Y. BEARD lie of New Jersey My Commission expires on Notary Public of New Jersey M'y Commission Expires May 1, 1991
PROPOSED LICENSE CHANGE SALEM GENERATING GENERATING UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 FUEL ASSEMBLY RECONSTITUTION FUEL ASSEMBLY DESIGN FEATURES Description of Change LCR 86-09 Page 1 of 2 Revise Technical Specification 5.3.1 for Salem Unit Nos. 1 and 2 as per the attached page in order to allow for reconstitution of fuel assemblies containing defective rods.
Reason for Change The current Technical Specification 5.3.1 states that each fuel assembly shall contain 264 fuel rods clad with Zircaloy-4.
The intent of this change request is to allow for a reduction in the number of fuel rods per assembly in cases where leaking fuel rods are identified and replaced with either filler rods (consisting of either Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel), or vacancies.
This will permit utilization of the remaining energy in fuel assemblies containing defective fuel rods.
The justification of this change is based on the fact that the core reload methodology does not change when filler rods are used.
An explicit model with each discrete rod identified is utilized to predict core performance based on actual core inventory.
A reload analysis is performed to ensure that the safety criteria and design limits, including peaking factors and core average linear heat rate effects, are not exceeded.
This analysis will not be changed.
The result of implementing this change request will be that in cases where filler rods or vacancies are used, they will be included i the model as appropriate throughout its life in the core.
Significant Hazards Consideration In conclusion, no unreviewed safety question exists nor are there any significant hazards since:
- 1.
The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis is not increased.
The reconstituted fuel assemblies meet the same design requirements, satisfy the same design criteria as the original fuel assembly, and the use of assemblies will not result in a change to existing safety criteria and design limits.
LCR 86-09 Page 2 of 2
- 2.
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated in the safety analysis is not created because the reconstituted fuel assemblies satisfy the original design criteria.
- 3.
The margin of safety as defined in that basis for any technical specification is not reduced as is demonstrated by the review of fuel assembly mechanical changes and since the existing safety criteria and design limits will not be changed.
It has been determined that the use of reconstituted fuel assemblies in Salem reload cores does not pose a significant hazards consideration.
This is based on Example iii of those examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (10 CFR 14870).
Example iii states:
"For a nuclear power reactor, a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, if no fuel assemblies are significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved.
This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical specifications and regulations are not significantly changed and that the NRC has previously found such methods acceptable.
The reconstituted assemblies will meet the original design criteria.
The analytical methods used will remain unchanged.
Therefore, the use of reconstituted fuel assemblies does not pose a significant hazard.