ML20052F759
| ML20052F759 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052F756 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-48110, NUDOCS 8205130584 | |
| Download: ML20052F759 (3) | |
Text
o crogf,,
UNITED STATES g,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
W ASHINGTIN, D. C. 20555 n"
~ j
\\
/
- ?***
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF flVCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEilDMEllT NO. 28 TO FACILITY OPERATIliG LICENSE HO. NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION ftUflICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-366 1.0 Introduction 11,1982 (Ref.1) Georgia Power Company (the licensee)
By letter dated fiarch proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) of Hatch 2.
The pro-posed changes relate to the core for Cycle 3 operation at power levels up to 2,436 IMt (100% power).
In support of the reload application, the licensee enclosed proposed TS changes in Reference 1 and the General Electric (GE) BWR supplemental licensing submittal (Ref. 2).
This reload involves loading of prepressurized GE 8x8 retrofit (P3x8R) fuel.
This is the same type of fuel as was loaded during the previous r~eload. The description of the nuclear and mechanical designs of 8x8 retrofit is con-tained in References 3 and 4.
Reference 3 also contains a complete set of references of topical reports which describe GE's analytical methods for nuclear, thernal-hydraulic, transient and accident calculations, and information regarding the applicability of these methods to cores containing a mixture of fuel. The use and safety implications of prepressurized fuel have been found acceptable per Reference A.
The conclusions of Reference 5 found that the methods of Reference 3 were generally applicable to pre-pressurized fuel. Therefore, unless otherwise specified, Reference 3, as supported by Reference 5, is adequate justification for the current applica-tion of prepressurized fuel.
2.0 Evaluation
(
2.1 Reactor Physics The reload application follows the procedure described in NEDE-240ll-P-A-2,
" Generic Reload Fuel Application".. We have reviewed this application and the consequent TS changes. The transient analysis input parameters are typical for BWRs and are acceptable.
Core wide transient analysis results l
are given for the limiting transients, and the required operating limit j
values for minimum critical power atio (MCPR) are given for each fuel type.
The revised MCPR limits are required by the reload, and they are acceptable.
j I
8205130584 820506 PDR ADOCK 05000366 P
e Hatch 2,
2.2 Thermal Hydraulics As stated in Reference 3, for BWR cores which reload with GE's retrofit 8x8R fuel, the safety limit minimun critical power ratio (SLMCPR) resulting from either core-wide or localized abnormal operational transients is equal to 1.07.
When meeting this SLMCPR during a transient, at least 99.9% of the fuel rods in the core are expected to avoid boiling transition.
To assure that the fuel cladding integrity SLMCPR will not be violated during any abnonnal operational transient or fuel misloading, the most limiting events have been reanalyzed for this reload by the licensee in order to determine which event results in the largest reduction in the MCPR. These events have been analyzed for the exposed fuel and fresh fuel.
Addition of the largest reductions in critical power ratio to the SLHCPR was used in the MCPR TS to establish the operating limits for each fuel type.
We have found the methods used for this analysis consistent with previously approved past practice (Ref. 3). We have found the results of this analysis and the corresponding TS changes acceptable.
2.3 Rod Block Monitor The licensee proposed to place an upscale trip setpoint limit of 107% power on the Rod Block Monitor in Table 3.3.5-2 of the TSs.
This proposal would prevent reactor operation above 107% power. The fuel thermal limit margins are not reduced by this change, none of the present rod block or reactor trip setpoints are affected, and the 107% power limit provides protection to the fuel for an above rated core flow condition. We conclude, for the reasons stated above, that this change is acceptable as it provides for additional fuel integrity during a core flos condition ?xceeding rated flow.
3.0 Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types'or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impac Having made this determination, we have further concluded that th,t.
e amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or neoative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issum ce of this amendment.
l
3-Hatch 2 4.0 Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: May 6, 1982 The following NRC staff personnel have contrib.ited to this Safety Evaluation:
Morton B. Fairtile.
REFERENCES 1.
Letter, Georgia Power Company to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
~
(USNRC), dated March 11, 1982.
2.
" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Hatch Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Reload 2", General Electric Report Y1003J01A32, dated December 1981.
3.
"Geneal Electric Boiling Water Reactor Generic Reload Fuel Application",
NEDE-240ll-P-A-2 and NEDE-240ll-A-2, July 1981.
4.
Letter, R. E. Engel (GE) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, dated
)
January 30, 1979.
l 5.
Letter, T. A. Ippolito (USHRC) to R. Gridley (GE), April 16,1979, and enclosed SER.
i l
l l