ML20215G178
| ML20215G178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Farley  |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215G175 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-61949, NUDOCS 8610200185 | |
| Download: ML20215G178 (2) | |
Text
F
!@ 5:fc UNITED STATES E'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
n
.i h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
...../
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 66 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-2 ALARAMA POWER COMPANY JOSEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT MO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-348 INTRODUCTION By License Amendment No. 56 to Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant Unit 2, we issued a change to Technical Specification 5.3.1 on an expedited basis to allow startup of Unit 2.
By letter dated July 8, 1986, the licensee requested a similar change for Unit I to be effective for the upcoming refueling outage scheduled to start in October 1986. Therefore, this amendment is being handled as a routine change and followup to the amendment issued for Unit 2.
The Design Features Section 5.3.1, Fuel Assemblies, of the Fa'rley 1 Technical Specifications identifies a maximum total fuel rod weight of 1,766 grams of uranium. Recent changes by Westinghouse to the fuel design, includino chamfered pellets with a reduced dish and a nominal density increase, have increased the fuel weight slightly. The weight increase would cause the assembly averaged fuel rod weight for Cycle 8 fuel to exceed the 1,766
~
limit by approximately one percent. The proposed change would delete the weight limits from the Technical Specifications to allow use of the slightly heavier fuel which is reflected in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) l Update for Farley.
1 Evaluation l
The important safety related parameters which depend on fuel weight, such as reactor criticality, power level, power distribution and the rate o' decay heat production, are all regulated by requirements in the Limiting Condition for Operation sections of the Technical Specifications.
In addition, the fuel weight is implicitly included in the nuclear design analysis performed for each reactor operating cycle and used to evaluate conformance with established limits for Design Basis Events.
For the slight weight increases reported by the licensee for the Cycle 8 fuel, and any similar possible small future fuel weight increases 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 sub,iect of review and changes to the other governing Technical Specifications.
C610200185 860923 PDR ADOCK 05000348 P
F.
^
\\, t Safety Summary We conclude that there will be no significant safety impact in deleting the maximum fuel weight from Technical Specification 5.3.1 for Unit 1 as we have recently done for Unit 2.
We also find this action preferable to changing
~
the specifications each cycle to accommodate the applicable weight, or to specifying an artificial upper value of the weight to bound future variations. Therefore, the proposed change is approved for Unit 1.
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves 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 amendment involves 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment 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 this amer;dmen t.
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 the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: September 23, 1986 Principal Contributor:
E. Reeves
. _.