ML20057A835
| ML20057A835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20057A834 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309150399 | |
| Download: ML20057A835 (2) | |
Text
. -.
/
UNITED sVATEs
[3c,7 }
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
- g ss
s,....f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.168 T0 l
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-51 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-313
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 19, 1993, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
submitted a request for changes to the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1) Technical Specification (TS).
The requested changes would allow the licensee to reconstitute fuel assemblies by replacing a limited number of damaged fuel rods with stainless steel filler rods.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposal to allow fuel assemblies to be reconstituted by use of stainless steel filler rods to replace damaged fuel rods has been previously approved for other nuclear steam supply systems designed by Babcock and Wilcox (B&W).
Supplement I to Generic Letter (GL) 90-02, " Alternative Requirements for Fuel Assemblies in the Design Features of Technical Specifications," encouraged licensees to propose a line-item TS improvement to accommodate a limited fuel reconstitution based on NRC-approved generic topical reports.
In December 1991, the B&W Owners Group submitted Topical Report BAW-2149,
" Evaluation of Replacement Rods in BWFC Fuel Assemblies." The topical report describes the determination of the effects of solid stainless steel replacement rods on the nuclear, thermal hydraulic, and mechanical analysis of the fuel. The topical report shows that it is acceptable to replace as many as 10 fuel rods anywhere in the fuel assembly with stainless steel filler rods. The report supports current fuel reconstitution designs and repair methods that have been developed to facilitate such repairs and provides the basis for the acceptability of stainless steel filler rods in B&W-supplied fuel assemblies.
The proposed amendment to allow the described repair of ANO-1 is not a cycle-specific approval.
Rather, it simply amends TS 5.3.1.1 to allow flexibility in the design-feature description so that such repairs may be made when and if needed, subject to the limitations and conditions set forth in the NRC staff safety evaluation (SE) of B&W Fuel Company Topical Report BAW-2149,
" Evaluation of Replacement Rods in BWFC Fuel Assemblies," issued April 12, j
1993. The SE affirms that Topical Report BAW-2149 is acceptable for W
v309150399 930907 PDR ADOCK 05000313 p
FDR
d referencing to support limited substitutions of stainless steel filler rods for fuel rods, in accordance with NRC-approved applications of fuel rod configurations. The amended TS 5.3.1.1 provides that such fuel assemblies shall be limited to those fuel designs that have been enalyzed using applicable NRC staff-approved codes and methods and shown by tests or analyses
)
to comply with all fuel safety design bases, including neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and mechanical considerations.
This ensures that future core alterations remain subject to controls with respect to overall fuel performance and safety considerations.
The amended TS 5.3.1.1 provides also that a limited number of lead test 4
i assemblies (LTAs) that have not completed representative testing may be placed in non-limiting core regions. This provision is suggested in Supplement 1 of GL 90-02 in order to explicitly acknowledge the use of LTAs in the core, appropriately placed, to test new fuel designs. The use of NRC-approved methodology is also sufficient to ensure that placement of LTAs in the core i
will satisfy all existing design bases and safety criteria. Therefore, the l
proposed change is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Arkansas State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONS L! RATION 1
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, i
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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 30193). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR l
Sl.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 the amendment.
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Bevan Date: September 7, 1993
---w
.-.,,.,,,,-..-,y,