ML15113A242
| ML15113A242 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML15113A240 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609090509 | |
| Download: ML15113A242 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 150 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 150 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AMENDMENT NO. 147 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS NOS. 1, 2 AND 3 DOCKETS NOS. 50-269, 50-270 AND 50-287
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 24, 1985, Duke Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) of Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3. These amendments would consist of changes to the Station's common TSs and would delete the reference to the enrichment requirement of 3.5 percent of uranium-235 in TS 5.3.1.4. The amendments would also correct two typographical errors. In Section 5.3.1.2, the active fuel assembly height would be changed from 144 to 142 inches. On page 5.3-1, in Reference 2, Table 4.3.1 would be changed to 4.3-1 (the period to a hyphen).
2.0 DISCUSSION Fuel Enrichment The proposed amendments would delete the specification that new fuel shall not exceed an enrichment of 3.5 percent uranium-235 (U-235). The licensing basis safety analyses are not directly affected by the initial fuel enrichment. Changing the enrichment will affect the core physics parameters; however, variations in the physics parameters will be in accordance with reload design methodology previously accepted by the NRC. The enrichment of new fuel which will be stored in the spent fuel pool is limited by TS 3.8.15. That TS ensures that fuel in the pool will remain sufficiently subcritical under all possible conditions.
The fuel enrichment is not a direct input to the reactor safety analysis. Fuel enrichment is used in conjunction with a number of parameters and considerations in determining safe operation of the reactor core. The fuel enrichment, number of fuel assemblies, exposure (burnup) of existing fuel, burnable poisons and fuel management schemes are used to derive measurable reactor core parameters important to safe operation. These dynamic parameters, rod worths and peaking factors are currently included in the plant's TSs. The specification of fuel enrichment in the core design section alone does not uniquely determine nor limit the values of the reactor core parameters which are important 50~9 8160827 PDR ADOICK 05000269 L
1169090C) ID "t PDRI'
-2 for safe operation. The existing safety limits and limiting conditions of operation in the TSs will have to be addressed and evaluated for each specific future reload and will take into account the fuel enrichment, but they will not be changed by the proposed amendments.
Typographical Errors These proposed amendments would also correct an error in Section 5.3.1.2.
The active fuel assembly height is 142 inches, not 144 inches.
Also, Table 4.3.1 will be changed to read "Table 4.3-1."
3.0 EVALUATION Reference to initial fuel enrichment in TS 5.3.1.4 will be deleted. All fuel that is inserted into the core must first go through the spent fuel pool.
TS 3.8.15 limits the enrichment in the pool, which will in turn, limit the initial enrichment in the core. While actual increases in the enrichment level of selected fuel assemblies and/or fuel rods are capable of reducing certain safety margins, the proposed amendment request does not address the actual enrichment but instead deletes the specification of enrichment from TS 5.3.1.4. Any changes in assembly and rod enrichment would, of necessity, be included in the reload report accompanying the reload amendment request.
For a given cycle, safety and operating limits are established and verified acceptable to the appropriate criteria, in accordance with the NRC approved Reload Design Methodology for Oconee. Specifically, TS 2.1 assures the fuel cladding integrity; TS 2.2 assures the reactor coolant system integrity and also prevents the release of significant amounts of fission product activity; TS 2.3 assures availability of sufficient instrumentation to provide automatic protective action to prevent any combination of process variables from exceeding a safety limit; TS 3.5.2 assures an acceptable core power distribution during power operation and assures core subcriticality after a reactor trip.
Finally, the Oconee Reload Reports document the acceptance of key physics parameters to the appropriate criteria, the review of each FSAR accident analysis, and assure that the transient evaluation of the reload cycle is bounded by previously accepted analysis.
The change of TS 5.3.1.2 for the active fuel assembly height to 142 inches from 144 inches is not a physical dimension change but simply a typographical correction.
The proposed amendments also correct a typographical error on page 5.3-1, in Reference 2. Table 4.3.1 is changed to Table 4.3-1. This change is also purely administrative.
We have reviewed the proposed amendment request and find it acceptable.
-3
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities' components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. We have determined that these amendments involve 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
5.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: August 27, 1986 Principal Contributor: H. N. Pastis