ML20215C716
| ML20215C716 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1986 |
| From: | SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215C696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612150349 | |
| Download: ML20215C716 (3) | |
Text
_
ATTAc. ament 1 DESIGN FEATURES 5.3 REACTOR CORE FUEL ASSEMBLIES 3,
A
5.3.1 The reactor core shall contain 157 fuel assemblies with each fuel assemblycontaining264fuelrodscladwith/tircaloy-4/f Each fuel rod shall have a nominal active fuel length of 144 inches and contain a maximum total weight of 1766 grams uranium.
The initial core loading shall have a maximum enrichment of 3.2 weight percent U-235.
Reload fuel shall be similar in physical design to the initial core loading and shall have a maximum enrichment of 4.3 weight percent U-235.
(,
CONTROL R00 ASSEMBLIES 5.3.2 The reactor core shall contain 48 full length contro'l rod assemblies.
The full length control rod assemblies shall contain a nominal 142 inches of absorber material.
The nominal values of absorber material shall be 80 percent j
silver, 15 percent indium and 5 percent cadmium.
All control rods shall be clad with stainless steel tubing.
5.4 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTEM OESIGN PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE 3
5.4.1 The reactor coolant system is designed and shall be maintained:
a.
In accordance with the code requirements specified in Section 5.2 of the FSAR, with allowance for normal degradation pursuant to the applicable Surveillance Requirements, b.
For a pressure of 2485 psig, and c.
For a temperature of 650 F, except for the pressurizer which is 680 F.
VOLUME 5.4.2 The total water and steam volume of the reactor coolant system is 9407 1 100 cubic feet at a nominal T f 586.8 F.
avg
- 5. 5 METEOROLOGICAL TOWER LOCATION 5.5.1 The meteorological tower shall be located as shown on Figure 5.1-1.
8612150349 061209 DR ADOCK 0500 5
SUMMER - UNIT 1 5-6 Amendment-Nor 27-
~
_---------n---___-----
i a
i i
INSERT "A"
,except that substitutions of fuel rods by filler rods consisting of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel, or by vacancies, may be made if justified by cycle specific reload analysis.
i i
. ~. - -.
g ATTACHMENT ll Description of Amendment Request:
The pro sosed amendment would modify Technical Specification 5.3.1, " Fuel Assemb ies", to allow SCE&G the flexibility of fuel assembly reconstitution.
Basis for No Sianificant Hazards Consideration Determination:
Section 5.3.1 of the Technical Specifications describes certain design features of the fuel assemblies in the reactor core. The description currently states that each fuel assembly in the core is comprised of 264 fuel rods clad with Zircaloy-4. The proposed change would allow substitution of some of the fuel rods with filler rods consisting of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel. The change would also allow fuel rods to be removed from the assembly structure and those positions left vacated.
In each reload core the reconstituted assemblies would be specifically evaluated using standard methods currently utilized in accepted reload methodology topicals. Existing safety criteria and design limits will apply in these evaluations.
Consideration of the effects on peaking f actors and core average linear heat rate will be included in the core physics evaluations.
The Commission has provided certain examples (48 FR 14870) of actions likely to involve no significant hazards considerations. This change is similar to Example iii which states: "For a nuclear power reactor, 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 s,ignificant changes are made to the acceptance 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."
In addition:
1)
Theprobability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment im 3ortant to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report will not ae significantly increased because the use of reconstituted assemblies will not change the existing safety criteria or design limits imposed on the original fuel assemblies; 2)
The possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report will not be created because the reconstituted assemblies will continue to be evaluated at each reload to ensure core physics analysis of peaking factors and core average linear heat rate effects are within the existing design criteria; and 3)
The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specifications will not be reduced because existing safety criteria and design limits will be imposed on all reconstituted assemblies. Specific reload evaluations which examine mechanical assembly changes ensure current safety margins are maintained.
Therefore, based on the above considerations, SCE&G has determined that this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.