ML20204G928: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 18: Line 18:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ _ ________________________
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - _ _ ________________________
8         o                                                   UNITED STATES 8             o              NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
8 o
                                  $          : $                                                WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
UNITED STATES 8
                                  \.....J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Be. aver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and pr(pared the following evaluation.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
Discussion and Evaluation
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
: 1. Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5. This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6. The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
\\.....J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Be. aver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and pr(pared the following evaluation.
: 2. Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycle.i. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5. We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
Discussion and Evaluation 1.
1                                     3. Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle S. These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.
: 4. Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
2.
Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycle.i. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.
We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
1 3.
Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle S.
These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
4.
Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was performed with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.
Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was performed with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.
8608070423 060729 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P                 PDR
8608070423 060729 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
PDR


                                          /
/
r Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.                                                                            .
' r Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.
                                                                                                                          % e
% e 5.
: 5. Technical Specification No changes to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
Technical Specification No changes to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
Conclusion Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the pub?ic.
Conclusion Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the pub?ic.
Dated : July, 1986 I
Dated : July, 1986 I
Line 38: Line 48:
n 3
n 3


            #                'o,                               UNITED STATES 8                     %              NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h                     ;$                            WASHINGTON D. C.20555
'o, UNITED STATES 8
          \...../                     SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
.,'                Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.
WASHINGTON D. C.20555
Discussion and Evaluation j                  1.     Fuel Design l                 The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5. This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6. The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
\\...../
2 '. Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5. We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.
: 3.     Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle 5. These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
Discussion and Evaluation 1.
: 4.     Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
Fuel Design j
l The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.
This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
2 '.
Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.
We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
3.
Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle 5.
These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
4.
Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
l Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was performed with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.
l Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was performed with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.


e Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.                                                                  .
. e Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.
i
i 5.
: 5.     Technical Specification Mc changer to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
Technical Specification Mc changer to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
          ,      Conclusion i
Conclusion i
Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Dated : July, 1986                                         .
Dated : July, 1986 principal contributor : W. Brooks
principal contributor : W. Brooks


[          'a                                                          UNITED STATES
[
[
g N;j                                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'a UNITED STATES
        \...../             SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted o proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear
[
  .          Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.
N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
Discussion and Evaluation
;j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
: 1. Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5. This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6. The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
\\...../
: 2. Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5. We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted o proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.
: 3. Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle 5. These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
Discussion and Evaluation 1.
: 4. Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation                                       !
Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.
Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop                               l steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
2.
Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.
We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
3.
Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle 5.
These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
4.
Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was perfonned with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.
Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was perfonned with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.


Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.                                                                                                                                                                            .
_ Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.
: 5.                 Technical Specification Nc char.;e! to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
5.
      ,                      Conclusion i
Technical Specification Nc char.;e! to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
Conclusion i
Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Dated : July, 1986 Principal contributor : W. Brooks i
Dated : July, 1986 Principal contributor : W. Brooks i
1
1


    #                                                            UNITED STATES
'o,t, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
  !"          'o,t,                                 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{,
{,               $                                        WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5
    %,...../
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear e     Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By {{letter dated|date=May 2, 1986|text=letter dated May 2, 1986}} Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear e
Discussion and Evaluation
Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.
: 1. Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5. This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6. The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
Discussion and Evaluation 1.
2 '. Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5. We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.
: 3. Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic pararreters of the core from those of Cycle 5. These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
: 4. Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology"of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology . The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
2 '.
Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.
We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.
3.
Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic pararreters of the core from those of Cycle 5.
These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.
4.
Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology"of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology. The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.
Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was perfonned with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.
Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was perfonned with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.


        . .        a-d Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.                                                                                                                                       -
a-d
]             5.           Technical Specification Mc chan;e! to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
' Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.
      .      Conclusion i
]
5.
Technical Specification Mc chan;e! to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.
Conclusion i
Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
Dated : July, 1986 Principal contributor : W. Brooks i
Dated : July, 1986 Principal contributor : W. Brooks i
t 4
t 4
_ . - . . - , . , . - _ _ . - . _ . . . _ - . . - . _ _ _ _ . . . - , _ _ _ _ - , , . , - - . _ _  , - . - _ ,_m-, . ._ . , _..___ . _ _~_,,.,._ . _ ._..__   _ _.~ . .... -,-,--..}}
,_m-,
.._., _..___. _ _~_,,.,._. _._..__
_ _.~..... -,-,--..}}

Latest revision as of 19:57, 7 December 2024

Safety Evaluation Supporting Util 860502 Submittal of Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation,Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant,Unit 1 Cycle 6
ML20204G928
Person / Time
Site: Beaver Valley
Issue date: 07/31/1986
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20204G896 List:
References
NUDOCS 8608070423
Download: ML20204G928 (8)
v • d • e


Text

_ - _ _ ________________________

8 o

UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\.....J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By letter dated May 2, 1986 Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Be. aver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and pr(pared the following evaluation.

Discussion and Evaluation 1.

Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.

This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

2.

Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycle.i. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.

We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.

1 3.

Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle S.

These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

4.

Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.

Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was performed with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.

8608070423 060729 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P

PDR

/

' r Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.

% e 5.

Technical Specification No changes to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.

Conclusion Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the pub?ic.

Dated : July, 1986 I

Principal contributor : W. Brooks i

n 3

'o, UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

WASHINGTON D. C.20555

\\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By letter dated May 2, 1986 Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.

Discussion and Evaluation 1.

Fuel Design j

l The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.

This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

2 '.

Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.

We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.

3.

Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle 5.

These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

4.

Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.

l Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was performed with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.

. e Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.

i 5.

Technical Specification Mc changer to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.

Conclusion i

Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.

Dated : July, 1986 principal contributor : W. Brooks

[

'a UNITED STATES

[

N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By letter dated May 2, 1986 Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted o proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.

Discussion and Evaluation 1.

Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.

This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

2.

Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.

We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.

3.

Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic parameters of the core from those of Cycle 5.

These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

4.

Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology". The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.

Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was perfonned with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.

_ Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.

5.

Technical Specification Nc char.;e! to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.

Conclusion i

Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.

Dated : July, 1986 Principal contributor : W. Brooks i

1

'o,t, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{,

WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5

%,...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction By letter dated May 2, 1986 Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proprietary document entitled " Reload Safety Evaluation, Beaver Valley Nuclear e

Plan, Unit 1, Cycle 6" which demonstrates that the core reload will not adversely affect the safety of the plant. We have reviewed the report and prepared the following evaluation.

Discussion and Evaluation 1.

Fuel Design The fuel to be loaded is of the same design and nominal enrichment as that loaded in Cycles 4 and 5.

This fuel design continues to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

The wet annular burnable poison rods were approved for Cycle 5 and continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

2 '.

Nuclear Design The nuclear kinetics parameters for Cylce 6 are within the range of those in previous cycles. The shutdown margin is increased over that in Cycle 5.

We conclude that the nuclear design for the reload core is acceptable.

3.

Thermal-Hydraulic Design There is no change in the thermal-hydraulic pararreters of the core from those of Cycle 5.

These continue to be acceptable for Cycle 6.

4.

Transients and Accidents The transient and accidents for Cycle 6 were evaluated with the approved methodology"of WCAP-9272-P-A, " Westinghouse Reload Safety Evaluation Methodology. The initial evaluation showed that the results of the two-loop steamline break analysis were outside the bounds of the previous analysis.

Accordingly, a full scale reanalysis of this event was perfonned with previously used and approved methods. The results showed that the DNB design basis was met for this event.

a-d

' Other events were shown to meet relevant criteria by the reload methodology evaluation. We conclude that the results of the transient and accident analyses are acceptable.

]

5.

Technical Specification Mc chan;e! to the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications for Cycle 6 were proposed by the licensee.

Conclusion i

Based on our review of the licensee's submittal we conclude that Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant Unit 1 may be reloaded and operated for Cycle 6 without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.

Dated : July, 1986 Principal contributor : W. Brooks i

t 4

,_m-,

.._., _..___. _ _~_,,.,._. _._..__

_ _.~..... -,-,--..

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20204G928&oldid=4066930"