ML20205C934
| ML20205C934 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1986 |
| From: | Wigginton D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205C939 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61512, TAC-61513, NUDOCS 8608150006 | |
| Download: ML20205C934 (6) | |
Text
-
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUKE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND PROPOSED N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering is-suance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 issued to Duke Power Company for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
By previous notice 51 FR 23484 on June 27, 1986, the Comission discussed proposed amendments which would revise the Technical Specificatiens (TS) to re-flect the third of several refueling stages involved in the continuing transition to the use of optimized fuel assemblies in McGuire Unit 1.
The TS changes would provide for plant operation consistent with the design and safety evaluation conclusions in the licensee's McGuire Unit 1 Cycle 4 Reload Safety Evaluation (RSE) which accompanied the licensee's amendment request of May 15, 1986. The notice also described (1) changes in axial flux difference limits as a function of rated thermal power which are' proposed for McGuire Unit 1, and (2) changes associated with a more positive moderator temperature coeffi-cient proposed for both McGuire Unit I and Unit 2.
Additional information in support of the May 15, 1986, request has subsequently been provided by the licensee by letters dated May 26, June 6 and June 30, 1986. These supplemental letters do not alter the proposed changes as originally requested. However, by letter dated August 4, 1986, the licensee requested additional TS changes for j
TS 5.3.1, " Fuel Assemblies", which were not included in previous no ice l
8608150006 860B05 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
. 7590-01 51 FR 23484. These additional proposed changes are the subject of this current notice.
The additional changes would allow use of solid stainless steel (SS) or Zircaloy rods (i.e., fillers) and the use of open water channels (i.e., vacancies) within a fuel assembly. Specifically, the existing requirement of TS 5.3.1 that the fuel assemblies contain "264 fuct rods clad with Zircaloy-4" would be changed to "264 fuel rod locations.
Fuel rod locations may at any time during plant life have, as determined by cycle-specific reload analyses, any combi-nation of (1) fuel rods clad with Zircaloy-4, (2) filler rods fabricated from Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel, or (3) vacancies." The additional changes would also delete an obsolete sentence from TS 5.3.1 which states that "The initial core loading shall have a maximum enrichment of 3.15 weight percent U-235."
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Connission's regulations.
Use of solid SS or Zircaloy-4 fillers and vacancies is proposed in place of fuel rods in fuel assemblies that are susceptible to problems such as
" baffle jetting." For Unit 1 Cycle 4, the licensee's submittal of August.4, 1986 provided a revised Reload Safety Evaluation (RSE) to reflect core changes in which one fuel assembly will have eight fuel rods replaced by eight solid SS fillers, and a second fuel assembly will have eight fuel rods replaced by six solid SS fillers and two vacancies. The SS fillers and vacancies will be located at the periphery of the core (so that any water jetting across the core baffle would impinge on the SS rods and not lead to fuel rod damage) and, therefore, would have little or no effect on core performance. The two fuel
. 7590-01 assemblies will meet essentially the same design requirements, satisfy the same design criteria as the original fuel assemblies, and the use of such assemblies will not result in a change to existing safety criteria and design limits.
The revised RSE continues to use analytical methods previously approved by the Commission.
For subsequent Unit 1 or Unit 2 cycles, cycle-specific reload analyses will continue to be performed in accordance with the Commission's regulations, as reflected in the proposed change.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in i.he probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The Commission has provided guidance for the application of these criteria by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations (51 FR 7744). One of these, example (iii),
involving no significant hazards considerations is "...a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, if no fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved. This assumes that no signficant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical speciff-I cations and regulations are not significantly changed, and the NRC has l
. 7590-01 previously found such methods acceptable." Based upon our review of the iict.nsee's August 1986 letter and its revised RSE as discussed above, we find that the proposed changes to TS 5.3.1 allowing use of solid SS and Zircaloy-4 rods and vacancies in place of fuel rods match the quoted example.
Another example of actions not likely to involve significant hazards con-siderations is (1), "a purely administrative change to technical specifications."
The proposed change to delete the obsolete sentence in existing TS 5.3.1, which applied only to the initial fuel cycles, matches this example.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the examples given above, the Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Comission has determined that failure to act in a timely way would result in extending the current refueling shutdown for McGuire Unit 1.
The licensee's scheduled date for completing the current refueling outage and achieving criticality is August 26, 1986. Therefore, the Comission has insufficient time to issue its usual 30-day notice of the proposed action for public comment.
Normally, the Comission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, the Comission may issue the license amendments before the expiration of the notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendments l
involve no significant hazards consideratior. The final detemination will consider all public and State coments received.
Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide the opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
. 7590-01 If the proposed determination becomes final, an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register at a later date and any hearing request will not delay the effective date of the amendments.
If the Comission decides in its final determination that the amendments do involve a significant hazards consideration, a notice of opportun'ity for a prior hearing will be published in the Federal Register and, if a hearing is granted, it will be held before any amendment is issued.
The Comission is seeking public coments on this proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. Comments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to B.J. Youngblood, Director of PWR Project Directorate No. 4, by collect call to 301-492-8060 or submitted in writing to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555 and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. All coments received by will be considered in reaching a final determination. A copy of.the application may be examined at the Comission's Public Document Room, 1717 H. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Atkins L'ibrary, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Section) North Carolina 28233.
1 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th' day of August 1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Dave Wiggint n, Acting Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A
0 5 AUG 1936 7590 01 If the proposed determination becomes final, an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register at a later date and any hearing-request will not delay the effective date of the amendments.
If the Comission decides in its final determination that the amendments do involve a significant hazards consideration, a notice of opportunity for a prior hearing will be published in the Federal Register and, if a hearing is granted, it will be held before any amendment is issued.
The Comission is seeking public coments on this proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. Coments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to B.J. Youngblood, Director of PWR Project Directorate No. 4, by collect call to 301-492-8060 or submitted in writing to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555 and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. All coments received by will be considered in reaching a final determination. A copy of the application may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Atkins Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC Section) North Carolina 28233.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of August 1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION iS\\
Dave Wigginton, Acting Director PWR Project Directorate #4 Division of PWR Licensing-A 35U PWR#4/DPWR-A P,W8f4 DPWR-A PWR#
PWR-A g
DHood/ rad MDdh an BJYoungblood a
08/p86 08/ /86 08/p/86 1/
--