ML20215E695
| ML20215E695 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E684 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706220061 | |
| Download: ML20215E695 (3) | |
Text
.
O f[@ MCO %,
UNITED STATES l
y
(
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\n.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1
RELATED TO AMEN 0 MENT N0. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY i
CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. STN 50-483
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 27, 1987 Union Electric Company (the licensee) requested changes to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30 for the Callaway Plant. The proposed changes are to Technical Specification 5.3.1, Design Features-Fuel Assemblies. The first sentence of Technical Specification 5.3.1 currently states, "The core shall contain 193 fuel assemblies with each fuel assembly containing 264 fuel rods clad with 1
Zircaloy-4." The proposed revision would remove the period at the end of this sentence and add ", except that limited substitution of fuel rods by filler rods consisting of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel, or by vacancies may be made if justified by a cycle-specific reload analysis."
2.0 EVALUATION The intent of the proposed change to the Callaway Technical Specifications is to allow for the reduction in the number of fuel rods per assembly in cases where leaking fuel rods can be identified and replaced with Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel rods or vacancies.
Replacement of leaking fuel rods with other fuel rods involves handling of additional fuel assemblies and has not been used in Westinghouse reactors to date. Replacement of leaking fuel rods will permit utilization of the energy remaining in fuel assemblies containing defective fuel rods.
In general, substitution of a limited number of fuel rods with filler rods or water holes has a negligible effect on core physics parameters and consequently on the safety analysis. The licensee states that in each reload core the reconstituted assemblies will be evaluated using standard reload analysis methods. The reload analysis will ensure that the safety criteria and design limits, including peaking factors and core average linear heat rate effects, are not exceeded. Thus, the final safety evaluation of implementation of substitutions allowed by this change will be made as part of the reload analysis performed for the affected cycle.
8706220061 870608 PDR ADOCK 05000493 P
s l
I j The staff had earlier approved a similar request for a change to Technical Specification 5.3.1 with slightly different wording than proposed by the licensee which the staff prefers and wishes to standardize.
This wording is, "The reactor core shall contain 193 fuel assemblies with each fuel assembly normally containing 264 fuel rods clad with Zircaloy-4, except that limited substitution of fuel rods by filler rods consisting of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel or by vacancies may be made if justified by.a cycle-specific reload analysis." This wording was discussed with the Union Electric staff and they orally agreed on April 3, I
1987. With this modificttion, which only inserts the word "normally"
)
into the wording proposed by the licensee, the staff finds the proposed-change acceptable.
)
Because the limited substitution of Zircaloy-4 or stainless steel rods or vacancies for fuel rods is not expected to have a significant impact on plant safety, and because a cycle-specific evaluation.will be performed to justify any such substitutions, the staff finds the proposed Technical i
Specification change ior Callaway, with the modification as discussed J
above, acceptable.
1
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted I
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the arr.ounts, 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 cate-gorical 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 amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has 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 i
Commission'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.
l Principal Contributors:
M. Dunenfeld, SRXB T. Alexion, PDIII-3 Dated: June 8, 1987
Distribution Copies:
Docket /Ffles NRC'PDR" "
Local PDR PDIII-3 r/f PDIII-3 p/f GHolahan AD/ Region TAlexion PKreutzer i
DWigginton MDunenfeld, SRXB OGC-Bethesda DHagan EJordan JPartlow TBarnhart(4)
WandaJones EButcher i
ACRS(10)
GPA/PA ARM /LFMB j
j i
~