ML20212J129
| ML20212J129 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212J125 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703060323 | |
| Download: ML20212J129 (2) | |
Text
g-7 4
UNITED STATES
[
'...,E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
g WASHINGTON D. C.20555
- ,,g g.
j SAFFTYEVAt. HAT]NPVTPEOFrICEOrNUCt.EARPrACTOD P EGIII. ATIO*
DFI t Eh TP AVENrvP'T No. 7F Tr racII. tty OrEPATINr, I tr.ENSE NO. DPR 70 ann t"Ehr#ENT No. f.0 T0 rACil.ITY OPEPATit:0 f.tCEKE NO. DrP-75 PI'RI.TC SEPV'CE El.ECTRIC AND r,AS CovrANY EHII.ADEl.pprA Ei,ECTp!C CnyPANy del.VAPVA POVER AND 1.TGPT COM E AND
-~- JTIV TTFtT7v El.ECTRIC C R ANY sat.EF MfCf.EAP GENERATION STATION, UNIT NOS.1 AND ?
DOCrET NOS 50-C79 AND 50-371 INTD0 DUCTION Av letter from C. A. McNeill, Jr. (PSEGI to the NRC / ATTN: 5. Varaa' dated October 3, 1986, Public Service Electric and Gas Company reauested chances to Facility Operatina I.icenses DPD-70 and DPP-75 for Salem Generatino Station Unit Nos. 1 and ?, respectivelv. The proposed chanaes are to Technical Specification 5.3.1, Desion Features-Fuel Assemblies. The first sentence of Technical Specification 5.3.1 for each unit currectiv states "The reactor core shall contain 103 fuel assemblies with each fuel assembiv containina 764 fuel rods clad with Nrcalov-4". The proposed revision for each unit would add "norrallv" before "containino" in this sentence, and would add at the end of the sertence" except that limited substitution of fuel rods by filler rods consistino of ?ircalov A or stainless s+ eel or by vacancies may be made if.iustified bv a cycle specific reload analysis."
EVAL.UATION AND Sf!MMADY The intent of the proposed chance to the Salem !! nits 1 and 2 Technical Specifications is to allow for a reduction in the number of fuel rods por assembiv in cases where leakina fuel rods can be identified and replaced with Mrcalov-4 rods or stainless steel rods or vacancies.
Peplacement of leakina fuel rods with other fuel rods involves handling of additional fuel assemblias and has not been used in Westinahouse reactors to date.
Replacement of leakino fuel rods will permit utilization cf the enarov reraining in fuel aesemblies containire defective fuel rods.
UN 2888? M,n_
w
c
-7 In general substitutior of a limited number of fuel rods with filler rods or water holes in isolated regions of the core has a neolicible effect ce core physics parameters and consecuently on the safety analysis. The wording of the chance specifically provide that the substitutions mav be made only if.fustified by a cycle specified reload analysis. The licensee states that an explicit model with each discrete rod identified is utilized to predict core performance bases on actual core inventory. We find this acceptable. The reload analysis will ensure that the safety criteria and design limits, including peakinc factors and core average linear Feat rate effects are not exceeded. Thus, the final safety evaluation of implementat'en of substitutions allowed by this change will be made as part of the reload analysis performed for the affected cycle.
Pecause the limited substitution of Pircaloy-4 or stainless steel rods or vacancies for fuel rods is not expected to have a sianificant impact on plant safety, and because a cyc1e specific evaluatier will be performed to
.iustify any such substitutions with an acceptable evaluation model, we find the proposed Technical Specification changes for Salem Units 1 and 2 acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no sianificant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed findino that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in correction with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: February 26, 1987 PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR:
M. Dunenfeld
-_