ML20213D540
| ML20213D540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213D526 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611120136 | |
| Download: ML20213D540 (2) | |
Text
___.
/
UNITED STATES
[
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
': j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR RECULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-42 KANSAS GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY KANSAS CITY POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.
WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482 INTRODUCTION' By letter from Glenn Koester to the NRC dated August 13, 1986, Kansas Gas and Electric Company requested changes to Operating License NPF-42.
At present the Design Features Section 5.3.1, Fuel Assemblies, of the Wolf Creek Technical Specifications identifies a maximum total fuel rod weight of 1,766 I
grams of uranium. Recent changes by Westinghouse to the fuel design, including chamfered pellets with a reduced dish and use of the integrated dry route process, have increased fuel weights slightly. The proposed change will delete the weight limits from the Technical Specifications to allow use of the slightly heavier fuel.
EVALUATION The important safety related parameters which are indirectly affected by fuel weight, such as reactor criticality, power level, power distribution and the rate of decay heat production, are all regulated by requirements in the Limiting Condition for Operation sections of the Technical Specification.
In addition, the fuel weight is implicitly included in the nuclear design analysis perfonrad for each reactor operating cycle and used to evaluate conformance with established limits for Design Basis Events.
For small 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 subject of re-view and changes to the other governing Technical Specifications or may be an unreviewed safety question as defined in 10 CFR 50.59.
hbR 2
D P
. We therefore conclude that there will be no'significant safety impact in deleting the maximum fuel weight from Technical Specification 5.3.1.
We also find this action preferable to changing the Specification each cycle to accommodate the applicant weight, or to specifying an artificial upper value of the weight to bound future variations. The proposed change is, therefore, acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a chance in the installation or use of facility components' located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has detennined 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 The Commission has previously
. issued a proposed finding that thi, exposure.s amendment involves no significant' hazards consideration and there has been no public consnent on such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22('c)(9)gibility criteria for categoricalPursuant to 10 CF environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION The staff has concluded, based on the considerations disc.ussed 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 Consnission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
The Consnission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 32270) on September 10, 1986, and consulted with the state of Kansas.
No public consnents were received, and the state of Kansas did not have any comments.
Principal Contributors:
Paul W. O'Connor, PAD #4 L. Bell, RSB C. Berlinger, RSB Dated: October 30, 1986
... - -. -