ML20211N042
| ML20211N042 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211N020 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8702270426 | |
| Download: ML20211N042 (3) | |
Text
.,
!puruq'o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
5
{
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\....+/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 22 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT N0. 12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 DUKE POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated April 29, 1986, Duke Power Company, et al., (the licensee) proposed a change to Technical Specification (TS) 5.3.1, " Fuel Assemblies," to delete the maximum fuel rod weight limit of 1,619 grams of uranium from the Design Features Section.
Recent changes by Westinghouse to the fuel design, including chamfered pellets with a reduced dish and a nominal density increase have increased fuel weights slightly. The weight increase has caused the fuel rod weight to exceed the 1,619 gm limit. The proposed change will delete the weight limit from the TS to allow use of the slightly heavier fuel.
EVALUATION The important safety related parameters which are indirectly affected by fuel weight, such as reactor criticality, power level, power distribution and the rate of decay heat production, are all regulated by requirements in the Limiting Condition for Operation Sections of the TS.
In addition, the fuel weight is implicitly included in the nuclear design analysis performed for each reactor operating cycle.and used to evaluate confonnance with established limits for Design Basis Events. For the slight weight increase reported by the licensee and any similar possible small fuel weight increase without a significant change in fuel design, there is no impact on the safety analysis.
A significant change in the fuel design would be the subject of review and changes to the other governing TS.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that there will be no significant safety impact in deleting the maximum fuel weight from TS 5.3.1.
The staff also finds this action preferable to changing the TS each cycle to accommodate the applicable weight, or to specifying an artificial upper value of the weight to bound l
future variations. Therefore, the proposed change is acceptable.
8702270426 ET70218 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
PDR r
-. _.. - ~
c, i ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments involve a deletion of facility design values for components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. However, this deletion does not alter the Limiting Conditions for the TS Operation Sections.
Thus, there is no change in requirements. The staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 exposures. The Comission has previously issued a oroposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there have been no public coments on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility). criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 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 amendments.
CONCLUSION The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no-significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register -
(51 FR 30566) on August 27, 1986, and consulted with the state of South Ca rolina. No public coments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
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 Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Kahtan Jabbour, PWR#4/DPWR-A Margaret Chatterton, RSB/DPWR-A Date: February 18, 1987
February 18, 1987 s
ANENDriENT N0. 22 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER STATI0fl, Uti!T 1 AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF CATAWBA fiUCLEAR POVER STATION, UNIT 2 DISTRIBUTION: w/ enclosures:
7 Docket Nos. 50-413/414 NRC PDR Local PDR NSIC PRC System PWR#4 R/F B. J. Youngblood K. Jabbour M. Duncan OGC-Bethesda T. Barnhart (8)
E. L. Jordan L. J. Harmon B. Grimes J. Partlow ACRS (10)
E. Butcher W. Jones F0B OPA LFMB H. Balukjian, RSB N. Thompson l
h l
l l
L s