ML20147E788

Application for Amend to License NPF-42,allowing Storage of Fuel Assemblies of Up to 4.5 Weight % U-235.Fee Paid

ML20147E788
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	02/26/1988
From:	Withers B WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20147E795	List: ML20147E788 ML20147E810 ML20147E825 ML20147E836
References
WM-88-0055, WM-88-55, NUDOCS 8803070158
Download: ML20147E788 (10)

Text

a(

'l w

(

[

(

4[

f WEF CRIGEk NUCLEAR OPERATING (qRPORATION t

l E4.s'c Mtwa x x'

.}

,1

{, ',',

['

P*e%wid arti?

5

/

ctw eneut= oar,e February'26,' 1988 s

,q 1

n.

^ j

(

i

.\\

VM 88. d'55 N,

s f I

V. S. 4 o'iear Reguletory Commission

'.'J N : Socument Control Desk h eh' W on, D. C. 20555 3

y a

a I

t S'blact: Docket No. 50-482:

Revision to Puel Storar,e 1

Technical Specifications 4

Ga.- ?lemen :

int pucpose of this lettu is to transmit an application for amende.ent to Facility Operating Licene No.

NPF-42 fc= Wolf 'Jreek Generating Station c

(WCGS),

Unit No.

1.

This license emendment request proposes revising l

Technical Specification Ef gures 3.9-1, 5.6-1, Sections S.3 1 and 5.6.1.1,

.<hich address the Puel Ast.pblies and Puel Storage.

This application for eaenO.ent ?evises these. TecMical brecificatio1s to allow the storag<. of f.tel asse 5 blies of 'q to l.5 weight percent U-235.

A i

completa Safety Pvalation

a. d Signi>% snt Hazardo Consideration are provided as Attachments I and II respeutive'y.

The propo sud chandes to the Techni-cal 3roifications are provided in Attachment. III.

Attachment IV 1

proviD,.. results of the criticality analysie larfo m i for the WCGS Puel Storay Backs.

A safety n ecluation,

including offsite radiologfcal ceraequences consideru ior.8, of fuel in the reactor with enrichments greater than 3 5 weight pere et U-235 will be made on a cycle-specific basis as part of t i.,

reload cafety evaluation process.

In accordance with 10 CPR 50.91, a copy of this appl i<'.n.+' in, with 1

attachments is being provided to the designated Kansas state official.

Enclosed is a check (No.

10060) for the $150.00 application fee reqtitreu by 10 CFR 17G.21.

The proposed revision to the Wolf Creek Cener9 ting Vrtion TechnicC.

a Specifications will be fully implementei within 30 de.) s at cornal Nuclear Regulatory Comission approval.

8803070158 880226 PDR ADOCK 0S000482 p

DCD I

I RO. Box 411/ Burlington, KS 66839 / Ptow (316) 364~B831 x

v p wpe

-,. m,, - -

-9pbleobo

e 4

1 VM 88-0055 Page 2 of 2 February 26,1F85 i

i If yo; have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me or 7;()

Mr. O. L. Maynard of my staff.

Very truly yours,

_]

Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer BDd/jad Enclosure a'

5 Attachments:

I - Safety Evaluation II - Significant Hazards Consideration

. '\\

III - P.oposed Technical Specificaton Change IV - Pue?. Storage Racks Criticality Analysis l

L cc:

G. Allen (KDHE), w/a l

F. L. Bartlett (NRC), w/a R. D. Martin (N20), w/a i

l Pe V.

l'Connor (NRC), 2 w/a I

1 1

i 1

I l

l l

l

3

.[:

u y

STATE OP KANSAS

)) SS COUlffY OF COPPEY

)

Bart D. Withers, of lawful age,-.being first duly sworn upon oath says that he is President and Chief Ex9eutive Officer of Volf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporations that he has' read the foregoing document and-knows the content thereofp that he has executed that same for and-on behalf of said Corporation with full power and authority to do so; and that the facts therein stated are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

,Y y

_s_ _)

Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer SUBSCRIBED and sworn to before me this A l, day ofY

, 1988.

af gnl. k.<,'

w od a % ln n p.. ""

r.jp;i o

notary euhito

'-<i *.

Expiration Date Y, /ffo l

\\

r_'

=www m iv -

+

j

}

• A s

e d

\\

ATTACHMENT I

Attachment I to WM 88-0055 Page 1 of 2 February 26, 1988

'T DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MNDENT Technical Specifications 5.3.1 and 5.6.1.1 are being changed to allow storage of fuel assemblies of up to 4.5 weight percent (w/o)

U-235 which is an increase from the current limit of 3.5 weight percent U-235.

Tecnnice.1 Specification 5.6.1.1 is also being revired to reflect the actual s)ent fuel 2001 storage rack nominal cell pitch of 9.236 inches.

In addition,

-tie Accepta)le/ Unacceptable regions of Figure 5.6-1 and Figure 3.9-1 are being changed on the Burnup versus Enrichment graphs to reflect the higher possible enrichments.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED MMOENT Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Cycle 4 will be an 18-month cycle which will require fuel of a higher U-235 enrichment than is currently allowed for storage in the Spent Fuel and New Fuel Storage Racks.

The current maximum enrichm:nt allowed by Technical Specifications is 3.5 w/o U-235.

Criticality analyses of the WCGS fuel storage racks was performed for Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCN0C) by Pickard, Lowe and Garrick, Inc.

(PL&G). These analyses are provided as Attachment IV.

The conclusion of-these analyses is that Westinghouse standard fuel assemblies with U-235 enrichment as high as 4.5 w/o can be safely stored in the WCGS Spent Fuel and New Fuel Storage Racks.

The spent fuel pool storage rack nominal cell pitch is being revised to reflect actual dimensions as shown on design drawings.

The original analysis performed by PL&G utilized a SNUPPS cell pitch value of 9.14 inches.

This resulted in a conservative estimate of X infinity at a cell ) itch of 9.236 inches, since the effective fuel density decreases as tie pitch-increases.

The analysis provided as Attachment IV utilized a nominal cell pitch of 9.236 inches.

WCNOC expects to begin receiving WCGS Cycle 4 standard fuel assemblies with 4.1 w/o U-235 on-site as early as June 1988. Therefore, WCN0C requests approval of the proposed change by June 1, 1988 to support the existing fuel receipt schedule.

I l

Attachment I to WM 88-0055 Page 2 of 2 February 26, 1988 SAFETY EVALUATION Based on the criticality analyses provided in Attachment IV, WCNOC has determined that this proposed amendment does not involve an unreviewed safety question, because:

1) The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report has not increased.

An increase to a maximum enrichment of 4.5 w/o does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident or other adverse conditions over previous evaluatiora.

The small increase in fuel enrichment has only a very minimal effect on the fuel handling accidents described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report. Because of the conservative techniques and assumptions used to evaluate than reasonable assurance ~ multiplication factor, there is more the maximum possible neutron that no significant hazards based on criticality safety is involved in storing fuel assemblies of u) to and including 4.5 w/o in the spent fuel storage racks under

)oth normal and postulated accident conditions.

2) The possiblity for an accident or malfunction of a different type-than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report has not been created.

An increase to a maximum enrichment level of 4.5 w/o does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or condition from previous evaluations.

An increase to the enrichment level of 4.5 w/o from 3.5 w/o involved extending the previous evaluations to cover more realistic situations.

The same c:lculational techniques and computer codes were used.

3) The margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical s)eci-fication has not been reduced. An increase in the maximum enricament to 4.5 w/o does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As discussed above, in all cases the multiplication factors for worst case approximations fall considerably below the regulatory limit and do not represent significant reductions in a margin of safety.

Based on the above discussions and the considerations presented in Attachments II and IV, the proposed revisions to the WCGS Technical Specifications do not increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report; or create a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated in the safety analysis report; or reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any technical specification.

Therefore, the proposed revisions do not adversely affect or andanger the health or safety of the general public or involve a significant safety hazard.

)

ATTACMENT II I

I

(

l

9 i

Attachment II to WM 88-0055 Page 1 of 2 February 26, 1988 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONS Based on the criticality analyses provided in Attachment IV, WCNOC has determined that this proposed amendment involves no significant hazards considerations, because:

1) This pro)osed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the pro) ability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

An increase to a maximum enrichment of 4.5 w/o for the spent fuel and new fuel storage pools does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident or other adverse conditions over previous evaluations. The small increase in fuel enrichment has only a very minimal effect on the fuel handling accidents described in the Updated Safety Analysis Report. Because of the conservative techniques and assumptions used to evaluate the maximum possible neutron multiplication factor, there is more than reasonable assurance that no significant hazards considerations are involved in storing fuel assemblies of up to and including 4.5 w/o in the fuel storage racks under both normal and postulated accident conditions.

For example, ignoring the 2000 ppm soluble boron in the spent fuel pool calculations results in conservative values of the multiplication factor.

Storing fresh fuel in Region 1 configuration at an enrichment of 4.5 w/o would result in a maximum multiplication factor of 0.9472 including all uncertainties.

Adherence to the curves generated for Figure 3.9-1 in the new Technical Specifications would assure fuel storage in Region 2 to be at or below the limit of 0.9150 multiplication factor (includinguncertaintiesandadditionalmargins).

In the extreme case of loading Region 2 with frer) 4.5 w/o fuel for example, and taking credit for 2000 ppm soluble boron results in a maximum multiplication factor of 0.9408.

In all cases, the values of multiplication factor are below the required limit of 0.95.

The spent fuel pool storage rack nominal cell pitch is being revised to reflect actual dimensions as shown on design drawings. The analysis provided as Attachment IV was performed using a value of 9.236 inches for nominal cell pitch.

2) This proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. An increase to a maximum enrichment level of 4.5 w/o does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident or condition from previous evaluations. An increase in the enrichment level to 4.5 w/o from 3.5 w/o involved extending the previous evaluations to cover more realistic situations.

The same calculetional techniques and computer codes were used.

The proposed amendment does not alter the configuration of the plant or the way in which it is operated.

Attachment II to WM 88-0055 Page 2 of 2

. February 26, 1988

3) This proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin to safety.

An increase in the maximum enrichment to 4.5 w/o does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

As discussed above, in all cases the multiplication factors for worst case approximations fall considerably below the regulatory limit and do not represent significant reductions in a margin of safety.

Based on the 3bove discussions and those presented in Attachments I and IV, it has been determined that the requested Technical Specification revisions do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an-accident or other adverse condition over previous evaluations; or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident over previous evaluations; or involve a significant reductiuen in a margin of safety.

Therefore, the requested license amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

4 F

4 ATTACHMENT III