ML20214W285
| ML20214W285 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214W279 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-64749, TAC-64750, NUDOCS 8706150194 | |
| Download: ML20214W285 (2) | |
Text
-
f*
o UNITED STATES g
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
- p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\
.. /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-80 AND AMENDMENT N0.11 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-82 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 1
DOCKET NOS. 50-275 AND 50-323
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated February 10, 1987, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG8E or the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The proposed amendments would allow replacement of fuel rods in fuel assemblies with filler rods or vacancies on a limited basis.
The proposed changes involve Technical Specification 5.3.1, " Design Features-Fuel Assemblies." The first sentence of Technical Specification 5.3.1 for each unit currently states "The core shall contain 193 fuel assemblies with each fuel assembly containing 264 fuel rods clad with Zircaloy-4." The proposed revision for each unit would remove the period at the end of this sentence and add "except that limited substitution of fuel rods by filler rods consisting of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel or by vacancies may be made if justified by a cycle-specific reload analysis.
On April 2,1987, the licensee orally agreed to a minor word change in the proposed Technical Specification. This clarification did not alter the staff initial determination of, or the substance of, the application noticed in the Federal Register on April 22, 1987.
2.0 EVALUATION The intent of the proposed change to the Diablo Canyon, Technical Specifi-cations is to allow for the reduction in the number of fuel rods per assembly in cases where leaking fuel rods can be identified and replaced with Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel rods or vacancies. Replacement of leaking fuel rods will permit utilization of the energy remaining in fuel assemblies containing defective fuel rods.
In general, substitution of a limited number of fuel rods with fillers rods or water holes has a negligible effect on core physics parameters and consequently on the safety analysis. The licensee states that in each reload core the reconstituted assemblies will be evaluated using standard reload analysis methods. The reload analysis will ensure that the safety criteria l
and design limits, including peaking factors and core average linear heat rate effects, are not exceeded. Thus, the final safety evaluation of implementation of substitutions allowed by this change will be made r.s part nf tha ralnart analvsis, performed for the affected cycle.
8706150194 870600 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P
PDR j
\\
' i We had earlier approved a similar request for a change to Technical Specification 5.3.1 with slightly different wording than proposed by the licensee which we prefer and wish to standardize. This wording is "The reactor core shall contain 193 fuel assemblies with each fuel' assembly nomally containing 264 fuel rods clad with Zircaloy-4, except that limited substitution of fuel rods by fillers rods consisting.of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel or by vacancies may be made if justified by a cycle specific reload analysis." This wording was discussed with the PG8E staff and they orally agreed on April 2, 1987. With this modification, which only inserts the word "normally" into the wording proposed by the licensee, we find the proposed change acceptable.
Because the limited substitution of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel rods or vacancies for fuel rods is not expected to have a significant impact on the safety analysis, and because a cycle-specific evaluation will be performed to justify any such substitutions, we find the proposed Technical Specification change for Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2, with the modification as discussed above, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have 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 radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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 these amendments.
4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The NRC staff has advised the Chief of the Radiological Health Branch, State Department of Health Services, State of California, of the proposed deter-mination of no significant hazards consideration. No coments were received.
I
5.0 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 Comission's regulations and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
M. Dunenfeld Dated: June 8,1987 e
-m, s
na--,
-+-.e
,m
.-w w
-,-e--
,~~---n-,n p-
-- - - re
- - Q' -
en,.
,-.m y.m---
e