ML20207M252

Responds to 860714 Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-44 & DPR-56,requesting Approval of Revised Spent Fuel Pool thermal-hydraulic Analysis.Change Does Not Require Amend & May Be Requested Per 10CFR50.59

ML20207M252
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	01/08/1987
From:	Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Bauer E PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
References
NUDOCS 8701130127
Download: ML20207M252 (3)

Text

,

January 8, 1987 Dockets Nos. 50-277/2?8 DISTRIBUTION Docket Files Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

~NRC PDR/L PDR Vice Preside ' ~ General Counsel RMBernero OGC-Bethesda Philadelphia

.tric Company 2301 Market Street Edordan/BGrimes Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 JPartlow/NThompson RClark/SNorris

Dear Mr. Bauer:

ACRS (10)

PD#2 Plant Files DMuller Re:

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 By letter dated July 14, 1986 you filed an application for Amendment of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-44 and DPR-56, requesting approval of a revised spent fuel pool thermal-hydraulic analysis submitted as part of a previous amendment application. We have concluded that no change in the Technical Specificatica is required and for the reasons discussed in the enclosed staff analysis, we agree with the conclusion in your letter of July 14, 1986 that there is no unreviewed safety questions. Consequently, removal of the administrative controls you implemented on spent fuel transfer rates does not involve a license amendment and may be done under 10 CFR 50.59.

Sincerely 1;. ;.. -

.:'9 Daniel R. Muller, Director BWR Project Directorate #2 Division of BWR Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page DQ(~:_PD#2, DBL:PD#2 DBL:P #2 Sriorris RClark:

D er 1/ b /87 1/o7/87 1 g /87 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY kR kock 05000277 27 870108 p

PDR

Mr. E. G. Bauer, Jr.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Philadelphia Electric Company Units 2 and 3 cc:-

Mr. Eugene J. Bradley Mr. R. A. Heiss, Coordinator Assistant General Counsel Pennsylvania State Clearinghouse Philadelphia Electric Company Governor's Office of State Planning 2301 Market Street and Development Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Post Office Box 1323 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mr. Thomas M. Gerusky, Director Washington, D.C.

20006 Bureau of Radiation Protection Pennsylvania Department of Thomas A. Deming, Esquire Environmental Resources Assistant. Attorney General Post Office Box 2063 Departmer.t of Natural Resources Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Mr. Albert R. Steel, Chairman Mr. R. Fleishmann, II, Manager Board of Supervisors Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Peach Bottom Township R. D. #1 R. D. #1 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Mr. G. M. Leitch Superintendent Nuclear Generation Division b7-1 Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Mr. Anthony J. Pietrofitta, General Manager Power Production Engineering Atlantic Electric Post Office Box 1500 1199 Black Horse Pike Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Post Office Box 399 Delta, Pennsylvania 17314 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 i

_.___,__,__.._,.,___._.m

,______,__.m._,.-

Staff Analysis Related to Philadelphia Electric Company's Submittal of December 26, 1985 Regarding Spent Fuel Cooling and July 14, 1986 Regarding Fuel Transfer Rates 1

The Philadelphia Electric Company proposes to increase the rate of transfer of fuel from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel storage pool from an administrative 1y imposed limit of about 20 fuel assemblies to approximately 100 assemblies per day.

There are two safety related considerations associated with this change:

1.

Whether procedures exist to accommodate the increased rate of transfer, and 2.

The rate of temperature increase of the fuel storage pool should all cooling systems fail, and the manner in which this could be accommodated.

With regard to procedures, Philadelphia Electric has approved procedures in place which relate to fuel handling and transfer - principally S.14.1, S.14.2 S.14.3, and S.14.4.

These procedures were in use and were acceptable prior to the fuel transfer rate restriction that Philadelphia Electric imposed on itself in the context of developing a technical basis for TS Change Nos.116 and 120.

With regard to rate of temperature increase of the fuel storage pool, a worst case calculation establishes that the fuel storage pool would reach boiling temperature in 43 hours4.976852e-4 days <br />0.0119 hours <br />7.109788e-5 weeks <br />1.63615e-5 months <br /> with a transfer rate of 100 fuel assemblies per day (as compared to 82 hours9.490741e-4 days <br />0.0228 hours <br />1.35582e-4 weeks <br />3.1201e-5 months <br /> with a transfer rate of 20 fuel assemblies per day).

This occurrence would require simultaneous failure of six cooling systems (pumpsandheatexchangers). Mitigating actions such as using the RHR coolin.1 system to replace the nonnal fuel storage pool cooling system would maintaiii the fuel pool temperature below 150 F.

Such action could easily be accommodated within the 43 hours4.976852e-4 days <br />0.0119 hours <br />7.109788e-5 weeks <br />1.63615e-5 months <br /> of heat-up. As discussed in the licensee's July 14, 1986 submittal and the FSAR, there is a crosstie between the fuel pool i

cooling system and the RHR system, allowing the latter to provide cooling of i

the water if the normal, redundant pool cooling systems are out of service.

The crosstie consists of a spoolpiece and several valves.

From discussions with the plant staff, the spoolpiece has normally been left in place so that connecting in the RHR system only requires opening the valves - an action that can be completed in less than an hour. Thus, the staff's previous conclusion is still valid - namely, that even in the unlikely event that all pool cooling is lost, there is ample time to take actions that would preclude boiling of i

the water in the pool. On the foregoing basis, we do not view the licensee's proposed action as an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR i

50.59(a)(2).

.