ML20128L422
| ML20128L422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1993 |
| From: | Beck G PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128L425 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302190234 | |
| Download: ML20128L422 (7) | |
Text
.
_ _. _ ~
y _:_,
+
f c.4 PIIILADELP111A-ELECTRIC. COMPANY '
-NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS-l 110 CFRJ50?90; 7
955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVDj
- WAYNE, PA 19087 5691 February;5,Jl993 c15) M o4000
-DocketENos. 50-277e H
50-278-t NUCLEAR SERVICES DEPAl& MENT
~ License.Nos. DPR-44:'
DPR-56' U.. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
ATTN: Document Control Desk i
Washington, DC ~20555
SUBJECT:
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,. Units 2
~
and 3 Technical' Specification Change: Request
Dear Sir:
Philadelphia Electric Company (PEco)Lhereby. submits.
Technical Specification Change Request-(TSCR)L92-21, in-accordance with :10 CFR 50.90, requesting L a3 change. to - Appendix. A of the--Peach Bottom-Atomic Power Station';(PBAPS) Operating Licenses.-
The ' proposed change concerns : fuel storage - criticality,--
specifically the conversion.-from demonstrating, compliance.to k -
eff < 0.95 using the er.richment method:to the k-infinity method.
' Attachment 1 - to this : letter describes. the proposed f changes..-
' Attachment 2:contains the: revised Technical Specification pages; and' Attachment-3 provides. the General Electric. Company's ~ SpentL:
Fuel Storage k-infinity-. Conversion Analyses; supporting _'the' proposed: Technical lSpecificationLchange.
If you have any questions concerning hhis submittal,'please-contact-us.
Sincerely,
,7 c
G.-
.. Beck, Manager LLicensingiSection-
Enclosures:
Affidavit, Attachment.1, Attachment 2,-
Attachment:
3; cc: T. T. Martin,. Administrator,. Reg' ion!I, USNRC
-J.'J.~Lyash, USNRC Senior Resident. Inspector, PBAPS'
-W.
P. Dornsifei Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ~
e unnn
-93021902341930205- -
- o"
- -J-I 1PDRs ADOCK305000277:
H l
P PDR1 #
~ ~
+
4 4
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
SS.
COUNTY OF CHESTER G.
R. Rainey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:-
That he is Vice President of Philadelphia Electric-Company; the applicant herein; that he has read the atteched
~
Technical Specification Change Request (TSCR 92-21) for changes to the Peach Bottom Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, and knows the contents thereof: and-that the statements and' matters set forth therein are true and correct to-the best of-his knowledge, information and belief.
9A,s w
Vice President Subscribed and sworn to.
before me this g, A day d{Gd4 1993.
of f
l I
Mt.M W ^
.e-Notary Public No'ad Seal Erica A Sart:n, rewy Put20 Tr@eriTwn.Cheste Cour.ty My Cowissen Emms Jtty10.1995
9 P
ATTACHMENT 1 PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION-UNITS 2 AND 3:-
Docket Nos.
50-277-50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE REQUEST-92-21
" FUEL STORAGE CRITICALITY" l
i.
o 4
Docket Nos.
50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44 DPR-56 Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo), _Licenseo ender-Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56'for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 respectively, requests that the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A to the Operating Licensos bo amended.
Proposed. changes to the-Technical Specifications are indicated by. vertical bars in the-margins of the pages contained in Attachment 2 and listed here:
242.
The proposed change concerns the Fuel Storago (5.5.D) section of the Technical Specifications.
Licenseo proposes that the change be offective on or before May 31, 1993, to support receipt of Gell reload fuel for PBAPS Unit 3, Relcad 9.
Description of Changes Licensee proposes the following change:
(1)
Delete existing Fuel Storago Major Design Feature 5.5.D.
(2)
Insert proposed Fuel Storago Major Design Feature.
5.5.D on page 242 which states:
"The spent fuel storage racks are designed and shall be maintained with-fuel assemblies having.a maximum K-infinity of 1.362'in the nominal core configuration at cold conditions."
Safety Discussion The change request is proposed to replace the existing fuel storage criticality criterion in the Technical Specifications.
Currently Technical Specification-section 5.5.D,1
" Fuel Storage" requiresLthat the average fuel assembly loading-shall not exceed 17.3 grams U-235 per axial centimeter;of. total' active fuel height of the assembly.
This requirement demonstrates compliance to the fuel storage'k-effective criteria (k-off < 0.95) using_a 7X7 design basis = fuel bundlo with a uniform rod enrichment of 3.5 wt. % Uranium 235 and-no credit for burnable poisons.
L l
h 9
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License'Nos. DPR-44 DPR Due to the evolution of new fuel designs and longer-operating cycles, the current Technical Specification. limit has become obsolete.
The longer operating cycles require fuel' designs with higher bundle average enrichments, more burnable poison (gado11nja), and new design features such as partial length rods and shorter active fuel _ lengths.
PEco has concluded that the maximum infinite lattice k--
infinity is a more appropriate parameter than the current Technical Specliication method of demonstrating compliance to the fuel storage k-effective criteria.
The fuel lattice k-infinity method was selected as the appropriate fuel _ storage criteria parameter since it accounts for all major fuel parameters, including geometry, enrichment, enrichment distribution, exposure, burnable poisons, water rods, fuel density, etc.
The maximum infinite lattice k-infinity method.is consistent with fuel storage industry standards.
The attached General Electric Spent-Fuel Storage k-infinity-Conversion Analysjs supports this conclusion.
The Staff has previously epproved similar Technical Specification change requests submitted by other Licensees and has concluded that the method change was acceptable.
~
No Significant Hazards Consideration Licensee proposes that this application does not involve significant hazards consideration for the_following reasons::
1)
The proposed change does not involve a.significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
l The proposed change replaces the method of assuring the compliance with the storage reactivity criterion.
The existing _ fuel: enrichment criteria is converted to a-k-infinity' criteria by computing the L
in-core'k-infinity of the exact same lattice type used; by the rack supplier in the-original fuel storage criticality analysis.
Since the proposed change does not affect operations,' equipment, or any safety.related g
L activity, current-accident precursors are unaffected.-
L j L
}
H i
Docket Nos.-50-277.
50-278' License Nos. DPR-44 DPR ]
Therefore, there is no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
E
- 11) _The p_roposed change does not create the possibility of
_a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not make any physical. changes to the plant or changes to operating procedures.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed. change will not affect the_ design function or configuration of any component or introduce any new operating scenarios or failure modes or accident initiation.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
iii) The proposed change does not-involve a significant-reduction in a margin of safety.
Replacing the method by which the fuel storage criticality is assured does not affect any safety related equipment activity-or equipment.
Therefore,-the proposed change does not reduce any margin of safety.
Environmental Impact Assessment An environmental impact assessment is not required for the change proposed by this Application because the change-conforms l
to the criteria for. " actions eligible :for categorical _ exclusion" l
as specified in 10 CFR 50.22(c)(9).
The proposed _ change'does not l
involve any systemsHor equipment that have:a direct relationship with the environment..The change replaces _the methodlof assuring compliance with the storage reactivity criterion as discussed in the previous section.
-The Application involves no significant change in the types I
or Significant increase in the amounts of any effluent that may l
be-released offsite and there will be no significant increase.in I
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.._ -
Docket Nos. 50-277 50-278 License Nos. DPR-44
-DPR-55 Conclusion The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review-board have reviewed the proposed change and have concluded that it does not involve an unroviewed safety question and that it is not a threat to the health and safety of the public.
1