ML20204G928

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: ML20204G892 ML20204G928
References
NUDOCS 8608070423
Download: ML20204G928 (8)

Text

_ - _ _ ________________________

8 o UNITED STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$  : $ 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

1. '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 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.

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

[

g N;j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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 l 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

1. UNITED STATES

!" 'o,t, 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-, . ._ . , _..___ . _ _~_,,.,._ . _ ._..__ _ _.~ . .... -,-,--..