ML20091H313

Forwards Significant Hazards Determination Analysis in Support of 840330 Requested Tech Spec Mods to Allow Use & Storage of Reload Fuel Enriched to Max 4.3% U-235.Changes Involve NSHC

ML20091H313
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	05/29/1984
From:	Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO.
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8406050128
Download: ML20091H313 (5)

Text

f

> Malling Address Alibema Power Company 600 North 18th Street Post Ofhce Box 2641 Telephone 205 783-6090 R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President-Nuclear Generation Flintridge Building AlabamaPower the soutwn e,ect? c sister May 29, 1984 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. S. A. Varga

. Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 Significant Hazards Consideration Analysis For Increased Fuel Enrichment Technical (pc tficition Change Request Gentlemen:

By letter dated March 30, 1984, Alabama Power Company requested Technical Specification Changes to authorize use and storage of reload fuel enriched to a maximum of 4.3 weight percent U-235. By letter dated May 10, 1984, the NRC staff requested that Alabama Power Company provide an analysis detailing the reasons and basis for their determination that no significant hazards considerations existed for the proposed changes.

Alabama Power Company hereby submits the attached analysis detailing the reasons and basis for the no significant hazards consideration determination. This letter supplements the Alabama Power Company letter dated March 30,-1984.

In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b)(1), a copy of this letter and its attachment have been provided to Dr. I. L. Myers, the Alabama State Designee.

jfeo I fe'!!83*J'8lig e sj,

Mr. S.- A. Varga May 29, 1984 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Page 2 Yours very truly,

$d ~ 6 R. P. Mcdonald RPM /CJS

1 sh-D36 Attachment cc: Mr. L. B. Long SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME Mr. J. P. O'Reilly Mr. E. A. Reeves THIS d Cib DAY OF b V , 1984 Mr. W. H. Bradford 0 Mr. G. F. Trowbridge Dr. I. L. Myers NNlev41M Notary Public My Comission Expires: l-10-87 i.

9 x

c r

ATTACHMENT SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS - PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.92 FOR THE PROPOSED INCREASED FUEL ENRICHMENT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES PROPOSED CHANGE Increased the maximum reload fuel enrichment of Technical Specification , 5.3.1 and the maximum allowable reload fuel enrichment for the storage of fuel in the new fuel racks of Tschnical Specification 5.6.1.2 from i 3.5 weight percent U-235 to 4.3 weight percent U-235. -

BACKGROUND Due to the planned implementation of 18-month fuel cycles and the energy constraints associated with the design of the fuel used in these fuel cycles, increases in the maximum reload fuel enrichment and in the maximum enrichment for new fuel stored in the new fuel storage racks are needed.

With respect to the reload fuel changes, each reload design will be evaluated to confinn that the cycle core design adheres to the safety

limits that exist in the current accident analysis and plant Technical Specifications. Therefore, increasing the reload fuel enrichment will have no bearing on the safe operation of the plant. ,

With respect to increasing the maximum enrichment fuel which can be stored in the new fuel storage racks, a criticality analysis was perfonned and submitted as an attachment to Alabama Power Company's March 30, 1984 letter. The criticality analysis demonstrates that all applicable NRC licensing criter.ia for criticality are met for the storage of 4.3 weight percent U-235 fuel in the new fuel storage racks of the Farley Nuclear Plant.

ANALYSIS Alabama Power Company has reviewed the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92 as they relate to the proposed increased fuel enrichment technical speci-fication changes and considers them not to involve a significant hazards consideration..' In support of this conclusion, the following analysis is provided:

A. Increased Reload Fuel Enrichment (1) The proposed change will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because all applicable safety limits will not change and the specific values for each cycle will be verified to remain within the bounds previously established. In this regard, each reload safety evaluation will compare the cycle specific core peaking factors, kinetic characteristics and other appropriate safety parameters to the assumptions and input values to verify that the cycle core design adheres to the safety limits given in the plant Technical Specifications. Additionally, an analysis of preliminary

< J ATTACHMENT Pag 2 2 )

loading patterns for Cycles 7 and 8 for Unit 1 indicate that the use of higher enrichment fuel will not violate the current plant Technical Specification limitations. Therefore, the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated will not change.

(2) The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because no changes have been made to the plant or the design of the fuel assemblies to accomodate the use of this higher enriched fuel in the core. Additionally, Alabama Power Company has reviewed the appropriate Standards, Codes, Regulatory Guides and the Standard Review Plan to verify that*this proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because increasing the reload fuel enrichment will not change the design or safety limits of the plant. Although the operating margins between the cycle specific values and the plant Technical Specifications limits may change (as in each cycle reload), a reduction in the margin of safety will not occur because the safety analysis margins are accomodated in the plant Technical Specification limits, which have not changed.

B. Increased Allowable Enrichment of New Fuel in the New Fuel Storage Racks (1) The proposed change will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the criticality analysis on the existing racks, which was submitted in Alabama Power Company's March 30, 1984 letter, has shown that the established NRC licensing criteria for. critica'lity have been met (i.e.,Keff 1 0.95 for dry or flooded conditions and < 0.98 for postulated accidents or optimum moderation conditionsT. Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated would not be significantly increased.

l (2) The proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because this change does not require any changes to the new fuel handling or storage facilities. Additionally, Alabama Power Company has reviewed the appropriate Standards, Codes, Regulatory Guides and the Standard Review Plan to verify that this proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) The proposed charge will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the criticality analysis has shown that Keff of the new fuel storage racks is well within the NRC acceptance criteria of 0.95 for dry or flooded conditions and 0.98 for postulated accidents or optimum moderation conditions (i.e., the worst case Keff was. calculated to be 1 0.8883).

L

h'ITACHMENT o e' Pag) 3 CONCLUSION Based on the reload design and safety evaluation methodology for cycle specific core designs and the new fuel rack criticality analysis, submitted to the NRC March 30, 1984, Alabama Power Company has determined that the proposed technical specification changes for increasing fuel enrichment limits will not increase the probability or consequences of an accider.t previously evaluated, create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or involve a signifi-cant reduction in a margin of safety. Therefore, Alabama Power Company has detennined that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92(c) and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

l f

1 4

l

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _. _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . - . _ _