ML20092B635
| ML20092B635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Brunswick  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092B632 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8406200313 | |
| Download: ML20092B635 (3) | |
Text
.
.p.a ** c oq%
.?
UNITED STATES V 'l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3., "b., y'l i
- W WASHINGTON. D. C. 20055
- a. 9.Wh.//
%'..w... ';
SAFETY EVALUATI0ft BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR PEACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING Al'ENDMENT ti0. 71 TO FACILITY LICENSE N0. OPR-71 CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-325 1.0 Introduction By letter dated January 31,1984, as s4pplemented Feb'ruary 29, 1984, the Carolina Pcwer & Light Ccepany (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-71 for the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit 1.
The amendment would correct the fuel enrichment number in the descriptien of the fuel assemblics in the Design Features section cf the Technical Specifications.
The fuel enrichment specified in the current Design Features section is incorrect because operation of the reactor with higher enrichment fuel was authorized by License Amendment No. 56. The current Technical Specification in section 5.3.1 limits the maximum enrichment to 2.85 weight percent U-235 whereas Amendment. No. 56 authorized operation with fuel centaining 2.99 weight percent U-235. Hcwever, Technical.Specificaticn section 5.3.1 was overlooked when Amendment No. 56 was issued.
This amendment is therefore a purely administrative change to the Techr.ical Specifications to correct the error in the fuel enrichment number. Also, in ccrrecting this error, the text was changed to correspond to that of the Standard Technical Specifications.
2.0 Evaluation The Brunswick Unit 1 Technical Specifications section t..i currently states the following:
"5.3.1 The reactor core shall contain 500 fuel' assemblies, with each fuel assembly containing 63 fuel rods clad with Zircalcy 2.
Each fuel red shall have a ncminal active fuel. length of 146 inches for 8 X 8 fuel and 150 inches for 8 X 8R. fuel ar.d cont' n a maximum -total.ueight. of 3,355 grams of U0 The initial core loadina utall have a maximum enrichment of 2.35 we$g.ht percent U-235.
Relcad fuel shall.be similar ir' physical design to
~
the initial core loading and shall have a maximum enrichment of 2.85' weight percent U-235."
The licensee has proposed that section 5.3.1 be. replaced by the 'following:
4_
oh,MS ~
. "5.3.1 The reactor core shall contain 550 feel assemblies, with each 8 X 8 fuel assembly centaining 63 fuel rcds and each 8 X SR fuel assembly centaining 62 fuel rods. All fuel rcds shall be cladded with Zircaloy 2.
Each fuel red shall have a nominal active fuel length of 146 inches for 8 X 8 fuel and 150 inches for 8 X BR fuel. The initial leading shall have a maximum average enrichment of 2.35 weight percent U-235.
Reload fuel shall be similar in physical design to the initial core loading and shall have a maximum average enrichment of 2.99 weight percent U-235."
The substantive change involved in this amendment is the increase in fuel enrichment from 2.85 to 2.99 weight percent U-235.
This change was reviewed anc evaluated in our Safety Evaluation accompanying License Amendrent No. 56 which was issued June 28, 1983 and authorized the resumption of operation after the third refueling.
In that Safety Evalt.ation, we included the evaluation of plant operation with Fuel Type P8DRB299 (2.99 weight percent U-235). We considered the Fuel System Design, Nuclear Design, Thermal Hydraulic Design, Minimum Critical Power Ratios, Thermal Hydraulic Stability and Analyses of Transients and Accidents. We found the refueled reactor to be suitable for the resumption of operation of Brunswick Unit 1.
3.0 Summary of Evaluation Based on our previous findings as presented in Amendment No. 56 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-71 for Brunswick Unit 1, we have concluded that Technical Specification section 5.3.1 should be changed to limit the average enrichment to 2.99 weight percent U-235.
We have also reviewed the text of proposed Technical Specification section 5.3.1 and have found that it is consister.t with that of the Standard Technical Specifications and is acceptable to the staff.
4.0 Environmental Considerations Ue have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint.of environmental impact and pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 Conclusions We have 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, and (2) such
. activities will be conducted in compliance with the Cerrmission's regulatices and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Principal Contributor:
S. tfacKay Dated:
June 5,1984 S
9