ML20073A074
| ML20073A074 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20073A057 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9409200112 | |
| Download: ML20073A074 (4) | |
Text
pn " coq O
. Is
/1 E
UNITED STATES 5I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.....,/
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.110 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 AND AMENDMENT NO. 101 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-8 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC.
JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 50-364
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letters dated February 16, 1994, as revised August 4, 1994, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC or the licensee), submitted a request for changes to the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley),
Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes requested in the February 16, 1994, letter revise Section 5.3.1, Fuel Assemblies, and Section 5.3.2, Control Rod Assemblies, to permit fuel reconstitution, to allow the use of ZIRLO" clad fuel, and to remove unnecessary detailed descriptions of fuel and control rod assemblies. The August 4,1994, letter reformated Section 5.6.1 and restored and relocated to Section 5.6.1 the maximum nominal fuel ~ assembly enrichment deleted in the February 16, 1994, amendment request, but did not change the no significant hazards consideration as published'in the Federal Reaister.
2.0 EVALUATION In its February 16, 1994, submittal, SNC stated it is desirable to have the flexibility to reconstitute the fuel assemblies, either during or between fuel outages, if it is determined that a fuel rod is damaged or a probable source of future leakage due to a clad breach.
Removal of leaking fuel rods, or those with a potential to leak, results in a reduction in both occupational radiation exposures and plant radiological releases.
Section 5.3.1 of the proposed amendment states the conditions under which zirconium or stainless steel filler rods can be substituted for the fuel rods. The-proposed TS requires an analysis to be performed using NRC-approved codes and methods and application of NRC-approved fuel rod configurations.
Generic Letter (GL) 90-02, Supplement 1, " Alternate Requirements for Fuel Assemblies in the Design Features Section of the Technical Specifications,"
dated July 31, 1992, provides guidance for reconstitution of a fuel assembly to replace damaged or leaking fuel rods. The staff has reviewed the SNC submittal and compared it to the guidance contained in GL 90-02, Supplement 1, and has determined that the SNC submittal is consistent with the guidance contained in GL 90-02.
9409200112 940908 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
4 In addition, the wording proposed by SNC is almost identical to that contained in GL 90-02. On the basis of the above evaluation, the staff has determined that the proposed.TS change to allow flexibility in the reconstitution of fuel assemblies is acceptable.
In the proposed amendment, SNC also requested a change to the TS that would state that the use of ZIRLO" clad fuel rods in the reactor core is acceptable. As a basis for the approval request, SNC referenced WCAP-lp610, the reference core design report for a fuel assembly design using ZIRLO " clad fuel rods, which was approved by the staff in Safety Evaluations (SE) issued on July 1, 1991, and October 9, 1991. These SEs approved the use of the VANTAGE + fuel design, i.e., ZIRLO " clad fuel, described in WCAP-12610 and found it acceptable up to a rod-average burnup level of 60 000 MWD /MTU.
f Because the staff has previously approved the use of ZIRLO " clad fuel rods, the inclusion of wording in the TS Design Features Section, which specifically identifies ZIRLO" as a zirconium alloy that may be used as a fuel cladding, is acceptable.
Section 5.3 of the Farley TS contains a detailed description of the fuel and control rod assembliss.
In order to provide flexibility to use various types of fuel that are similar in design to the initial core loading, SNC has proposed removal of unnecessary detailed descriptions of the fuel and control rod assemblies from Section 5.3 of the TS. SNC has stated that any modifications to the fuel or control rod assembly designs will continue to receive 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and, if necessary,10 CFR 50.46 evaluations and Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) revisions.
The staff has reviewed the proposed changes and has determined, with one exception, that the changes to Section 5.3 are consistent with the Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Plants as contained in NUREG-1431. The exception is the deletion of the maximum nominal fuel enrichments for the design fuel assemblies utilized as proposed in the February 16, 1994, submittal. Since fuel enrichments are included in the Improved Standard Technical Specifications, the staff notified SNC that deletion of the fuel assembly enrichments from the TS was unacceptable. By letter dated August 4, 1994, SNC revised its original submittal to retain this requirement. However, the nominal maximum fuel enrichments were relocated within the TS from Section 5.3, Reactor Core, to Section 5.6.1, Criticality.
In addition Section 5.6.1 has been reformatted in a manner similar to the Standard Technical Specifications; however, the requirements currently in the TS have not been changed. Since the August 4,1994, submittal only relocates a requirement and reformats other requirements currently in the TS, the conclusions of the Significant Hazards Evaluation submitted with the February 16, 1994, letter remain unchanged. On the basis of the above evaluation and the determination that SNC will still be required to perform 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations and UFSAR revisions, the staff has concluded that the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of Alabama official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
a
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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, 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 (59 FR 12366). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 the amendment.
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 ia 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:
B. Siegel Date:
September 8, 1994 i
k
.j_
.i
, AMENDMENT N0; 110 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF FARLEY, UNIT 1 AMENDMENT. NO. 101 TO ' FACILITY. 0PERATING LICENSE N0.- NPF FARLEY,- UNIT 2.
DISTRIBUTION:-
a
- 9. Docket File.C
)
. NRC/ Local' PDRs -
. PD II-1 Reading File S. Varga-D. Matthews
. P. Arderson
' B. Flegel
- T. 'ollins OGC D. Magan i
G. Hill (4)
.j C. Grimes a
ACRS (10)
OPA OC/LFDCB E. Merschoff, R-II j
cc:
Farley Service List h
I f
h
.a 9
~
h i
l s
I 1
m k'
m
_~
,,a