ML18005A389
| ML18005A389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18005A390 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8804130398 | |
| Download: ML18005A389 (10) | |
Text
AS REey, a
~
G+
fpo
~
OO IIII Yg+~
~O
++*++
t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELAT SHEARO R
L N
F63 LIN P
WER LIGHT C MP NY
, UNIT 1 K
N
. 50- 00
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 26,
- 1987, as supplemented by letter dated November 2, 1987, the Carolina Power 5 Light Company (the licensee) requested a change to the Shearon Harris, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS) (Appendix A to Facility Operating License NPF-63).
The proposed change would modify Specification 5.3 of the TS to allow only storage and handling of fuel elements having a maximum fuel enrichment of 4.2 weight percent (w/o) U-235.
The current TS restrict the maximum fuel enrichment to 3.9 w/o U-235.
The licensee's submittal of May 26, 1987, includes a Westinghouse
- report, Criticality Analysis of Shearon Harris Fuel Racks," January 1987, which supports the requested amendment.
Plant operation using the higher enriched fuel will be demonstrated to be acceptable by a cycle specific reload safety evaluatian performed prior to each fuel loading.
The criticality analysis and the environmental considerations associated with this amendment are delineated below.
2.0 EVALUATION The Shearon Harris spent fuel storage racks consist of square stainless steel cans having an inside dimension of 8.75 inches and a 0.75 inch wall thickness.
On the outer surface of each side of the cans, Boraflex sheets having a minimum area density of 0.02 grams per square centimeter of Boron-10 (B-10) are held in place by a thin-walled stainless steel-wrapper plate.
The rack structure main-tains these cans on a 10.5 inch center-to-center spacing.
The spent fuel is normally stored in poql water containing about 2000 ppm of soluble boron which results in about a
30% reduction in reactivity.
However, for conservatism the spent fuel racks are calculated assuming no soluble boron in the water.
The KENO-IV Monte Carlo computer code was used to calculate the reactivity of the fuel storage ar ray.
Neutron cross section data from the CSRL-V 227 group library was generated for input to KENO-IV using the NITAWL and XSDRNPM codes, These models have been benchmarked against experimental data and have been found to adequately reproduce the critical values.
The spent fuel pool criticality calculations were based on no burnable poison or control rods in the fuel assemblies, unirradiated fuel with 4.2 w/o U-235,
, and, as previously mentioned, no soluble boron in the water.
In addition, a
worst case calculation was made to ensure that the maximum keff for fuel 880%f30398 880407 PDR ADOCK 05000000 P
assemblies in the spent fuel racks will be less than the NRC acceptance criterion of 0.95.
For this calculation, the most adverse combination of dimensional tolerances was assumed, as well as pure water moderator, at a
temperature of 68' and a density of 1.0 grams per cubic centimeter and the minimum poison loading of 0.02 grams B-10 per square centimeter in the Boraflex.
The resulting k f is 0.9448, including uncertainties at a 95/95 probability/confidence lev5f, thus meeting the NRC acceptance criterion for criticality.
It is possible to postulate events which could lead to an increase in storage rack reactivity, such as misplaced fuel assemblies.
However, for such events, credit may be taken for the approximately 2000 ppm of boron in the spent pool water by application of the double contingency principle of ANSI N16. 1-1975.
This states that one is not required to assume two unlikely, independent, con-current events to provide for protection against a criticality accident.
The reduction in k f~ caused by the borated water more than offsets the reactivity addition causel by credible accidents.
Based on the above evaluation, the staff concludes that the spent fuel storage racks at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant can accommodate Westinghouse 17x17 standard or optimized fuel assemblies of up to 4.2 w/o U-235 enrichment in every storage cell and maintain k ff less than or equal to 0.95.
3.0 ENVIRONf~lENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This amendment involves a change in the storage of facility components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that this amendment involves 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusion set forth in. 10 CFR 551.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issbance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant. hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Re ister (52 FR 47779) on December 16, 1987.
The Commission consulted w t t e State of North Carolina.
No public comments or requests for hearing were received, and the State of North Carolina did not have any comments.
iF
The staff has concluded, based on ttre 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 regulation, and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
E. Branagan L. Kopp G. Staley B. Buckley Dated:
ApR,O y ~III'
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
Sholly Coor dinator Bart Buckley, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II DISTRIBUTION:
PD21 r/f PAnderson BBuckley
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BI-WEEKLY FR NOTICE-NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NO. 65420)
Carolina Power 5 Li ht Com an
, North Carolina Eastern Munici al Power A enc Docket No. 50-400, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Wake and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Date of amendment re uest:
November 26, 1986 and September 23, 1987 Brief descri tion of amendments:
In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.55, the licensee has submitted a proposed amendment to the Physical Security Plan for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, to reflect recent changes to that regulation.
The proposed amendment would change paragraph 2.E. of Facility Operating License No.
NPF-63 to require compliance with the revised plans.
Basis for ro osed no si nificant hazards consideration determination:
On August 4, 1986 (51 FR 27817 and 27822),
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amended Part 73 of its regulations, "Physical Protection of'lants and Materials," to clarify plant security requirements to afford an increased
Rl ll IH I
1.'l H
Rlk I('H P>>
I'IR H
R(
(
I(
h 1
I H
Hi O
h IR I
assurance of plant safety.
The amended regulations required that each nuclear reactor power licensee submit proposed amendments to its security plan to implement the revised provisions of 10 CFR 73.55.
The licensee submitted its revised plan on November 26, 1986 and September 23, 1987, to satisfy the requirements of the amended regulations.
The Commission proposes to amend the licenses to reference the revised plan.
In the supplementary materials accompanying the amended regulations the Commission indicated that it was amending its regulations "to provide a more safety conscious safeguards system while maintaining the current levels of protection" and that the "Commission believes that the clarification and refinement of requirements as reflected in these amendments is Lsicj appropriate because they afford an increased assurance of plant safety."
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the criteria for determining whether or not a no significant hazards consideration exists by providing certain examples of actions not likely to involve signi-ficant hazards considerations and examples of actions likely to involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7750).
One of the examples of
'ctions not likely to involve significant hazards considerations is example (vii)
"a change to conform a license to changes in the regulations, where the license change results in very minor changes to facility operations clearly in keeping with the regulations."
The changes in this case fall within the scope of the example.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission proposes to determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
e Local Public Document Room location:
Richard B. Harrison Library, 1313 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Attorne for licensees:
R.
E. Jones, General
- Counsel, Carolina Power 5 Light
- Company, P. 0.
Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 NRC Pro ect Director:
Elinor G. Adensam Bart Buckley, Senior Project f3anager Project Directorate II-1 Division Reactor Projects I/II LA:
R PAn e on Q/~88 PN: PD21: DRPR BBuckley 3/c Z(88
'Bcg D: PD21: DRP EAdensam 3 /Z8
I
.~
'l 4
H
'N U
t p
F,',
(
1'l~l PlA i"
- >I I
II
~ sc,
< Il a";
C 7
I'f l
l."s~ 8 ll T