ML17216A635

Proposed Tech Spec 5.3.1, Reactor Core,Fuel Assemblies. Ref to Max Enrichment of 3.7 Weight Percent for Reload Fuel Deleted

ML17216A635
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	07/22/1986
From:	FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML17216A632	List: L-86-302, Application for Amend to License NPF-16,changing Tech Spec 5.3.1, Reactor Core,Fuel Assemblies, to Delete Ref to Max Enrichment of 3.7 Weight Percent for Reload Fuel.Fee Paid ML17216A635
References
NUDOCS 8607280022
Download: ML17216A635 (5)

Text

OESIGN FEATURES 5.3 REACTOR CORE FUEL ASSEMBLIES 5.3.1 The reactor core shall contain 217 fuel assemblies with each fuel C

'ssembly containing 236 uel and poison rod locations.

All fuel and poison ';

"ods are clad with Zircaloy-4.

Each fuel rod shall have a nomina) active ruel length of '36.7 inches and contain approx ;ately 1700 grams uranium.

The initial core loading shall have a maximum enrichment of 2.73 weight percent U-235.

Reload fuel shall be similar in physical design to the initial core loading an~haH ha+~

maw4mum ear ichmenWcmf~.70 weight~

percent-U~5-.

CONTROL ELEMENT ASSEMBLIES 5.3.2 The reactor core shall contain 91 full-length control element. assemblies and no part-length control element assemblies.

5. 4 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM OESIGN PRESSURE ANO TEMPERATURE

.5.4.

1 The Reactor Coolant System is designed and shall be maintained:

,a.

b.

C.

In accordance with the code requirements specified in Section 5.2 of the FSAR with allowance for normal degradation pursuant -of the applicab'le Surveillance Requirements, For a pressure of 2485 psig, and For a temperature of 650~F, except for the pressurizer which is 700 F.

( 8b07280022 8b0722 PDR ADOCK 05000389 P..

PDR ST.

LUGIE - UNIT 2 5-3 Amendment No.P

ATTACHMENT B NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS The proposed amendment deletes the reference to a maximum enrichment for reload fuel in Technical Specification 5.3.l.

An evaluation of this proposed amendment has been performed to demonstrate that no significant hazards considerations exist, based on a comparison with the criteria of IO CFR 50.92(c).

The following evaluation demonstrates that the proposed amendment does not exceed any of the three significant hazards consideration criteria of 10 CFR 50.92(c):

I.

The proposed change does not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed.

The probability of accidents will not increase because the plant configuration and mode of operation will remain unchanged.

Acceptable consequences of accidents associated with storage of fuel assemblies with maximum enrichments of up to 4.5 w/o have previously been demonstrated and approved (Amendment No. 7 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-l6).

The consequences of accidents previously analyzed will remain unchanged because the consequences are determined by reactor operating conditions such as pressures and temperatures and core characteristics other than enrichment, such as rod

worths, reactivity feedback coefficients and peaking factors.

These parameters will be kept within previously established limits.

Adherence to these safety limits is submitted for prior approval either to the NRC or the Florida Power & Light Company Nuclear Review Board under the provisions of I 0 CFR 50.59.

2.

The proposed change does not increase the potential for accidents different from any accident previously considered because the plant configuration and the manner in which it is operated remain the same.

3.

The proposed change does not reduce the margin of safety.

It has been demonstrated in Amendment No. 7 as approved that fuel assemblies with a maximum enrichment of 4.5 w/o can be stored within acceptable safety limits and design criteria.

The margin of safety of the fuel while in the reactor is unchanged because the margin of safety is determined not by fuel enrichment but by established safety limits, such as rod worth, peaking factors and limiting conditions for operation (LCOs).

Adherence to these safety limits for every fuel reload is assured by performing a reload safety evaluation which is submitted for prior approval to the NRC or the Florida Power

5. Light Company Nuclear Review Board under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59.

GR M3/0 I 6/3

vvy Ay lt q,

~

~

V 4 <<y) v 0

1 44 4

~

~ 4 k

4 4

.I vt t 4

~

0 0

il '.

4 hy A

yh

'41 Vh v

>>4

\\

4 I

4 4

k V

4 I

0 4

H" I'

v

• ti I

~ *

,vkv 4

4 gh 4

I 4

~ t 0

0 v

4 1*

I I

I 4

~,

v

~ v I

4 4

~

~

4 k

~

4 4

~ I[

I

,1

)tl 4 I

I v kv v

A 4

I I

I II ht Il 14 A;

'V h

~

k I

4 A

4 0

I, t' 4

0 4

I

'I 4 ~

0

~

I

~

4 I,

1 4

~ lt 4

tt IL

~ k I

4 4

The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and is similar to example (i),

presented in the staff guidance for determination of no significant hazards amendments (48 FR 14870 dated April 6, 1983), of amendments not likely to involve significant hazards considerations:

"(i)

A purely administrative change to technical specifications:

for

example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature."

The proposed amendment is also similar to Amendment No.

48 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-6 for Arkansas One, Unit No. 2 which, deleting the enrichment requirement for reload fuel, was determined to contain no significant hazards consideration.

From the considerations discussed

above, it is concluded that the proposed amendment deleting the reference to a maximum enrichment for reload fuel in Technical Specification 5.3.1 does not represent a significant hazard as discussed in 10 CFR 50.92.

Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59, the proposed amendment does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

GRM3/016/4

a al t

ll l1 lI II I

I t

C

~

~