ML20207H431
| ML20207H431 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1986 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207H435 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607240312 | |
| Download: ML20207H431 (4) | |
Text
-
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-334 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Connission) is considering 1ssuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-66 issued to Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) for operation of the Beaver Valley Pcwor Station, Unit 1 located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications to (1) i remove the fuel rod weight limitation and, (2) allow use of stainless steel or l
zircaloy rods in place of fuel elements in fuel assemblies that are susceptible to problems such as " baffle jetting." These revisions to the technical specifications would be made in response to the licensee's application for amendment dated July 11, 1986, i
Before issuance of the proposed ifcense amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Connission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed detemination that the request for l
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission'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 the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; i
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.
%, 72gQ ha f
l
~
Change 1 The variation in fuel rod weight that can occur even without a technical specification limit is small due to the existence of other fuel design constraints, all of which provide some limit on the variation in rod weight.
The current safety analyses are not based directly on fuel rod weight, but rather on design parameters such as power and fuel dimensions. These parameters are either not affected at all by fuel rod weight, or are only t
slightly affected. A review of design parameters which may be affected indicates that a change in fuel weight does not cause other design parameters 4
to exceed the values assumed in the various safety analyses, or to cause acceptance criteria to be exceeded. The effects are not significant with respect to measured nuclear parameters (power, power distribution, nuclear i
coefficients), i.e., they remain within the technical specification limits.
Therefore, the statement limit'ag the initial core maximum enrichment to 3.2 weight percent may be deleted.
Change 2 One fuel assembly will be reconstituted with seven stainless steel or zircaloy rods in place of seven fuel rods; these seven "dumy" rods will be located on the outermost periphery of the reactor core and would have little or no effect on core performance. The reconstituted fuel assemblies will meet i
essentially the same design requirements, satisfy the same design criteria as the original fuel assembly, and the use of such assemblies will not result in a i
i change to existing safety criteria and design Ifmits.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of these, l
Example (iii), involving no significant hazards considerations is "... a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, if no fuel l
assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable l
to the NRC for a previous core at the facility in question are involved.
l This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptanci criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical specifications and regulations are not significantly changed, and that NRC has previously found such methods acceptable." Both proposed changes match the quoted example.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the example given above, the Connission has made a proposed detemination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has determined that failure to act in a timely way would result in extending the current refueling shutdown of Beaver Valley, Unit 1.
Therefore, the Commission has insufficient time to issue its usual 30-day i
notice of the proposed action for public comment.
If the proposed determination becomes final, an opportunity for a hearing i
will be published in the FEDERAL REGISTER at a later date and any hearing request will not delay the effective date of the amendment.
If the Commission decides in its final detennination that the amendment does 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 Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. Comments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to Lester S. Rubenstein, Project Director, PWR Project Directorate No. 2, by collect call to (301) 492-7872, or submitted in writing to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, Washington, DC. All comments received by August 8,1986, r
___,n, r
4 will be considered in reaching a final detennination. A copy of the application and any comments received may be examined at the Commission's Public DocumentRoom,1717HStreet,N.W., Washington,DC,'andattheB.N. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 18th day of July,1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C_
A Lester S.
ubenstein, Director PWR Project Directorate #2 Division of PWR Licensing-A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
9 l
1
.