ML20056G367
| ML20056G367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056G364 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309030047 | |
| Download: ML20056G367 (3) | |
Text
_
/
o UNITED STATES
~g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
- ...+
, SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. un 10 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-56 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 DOCKET NO. 50-278
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 28, 1993, the Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company and Atlantic City Electric Company (the licensees) submitted a requ.est for changes to the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 3, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would revise the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR). for two recirculation loop and single recirculation loop operation to 1.07 and 1.08 respectively. The change was requested to accommodate installation and use of a new fuel type, GE-11 fuel, during Unit 3 Cycle 10 operation.
l 2.0 LVALUATION The current Unit 3 TS MCPR Safety Limits are 1.06 for two-recirculation loop operation and 1.07 for single recirculation loop operation. However, use of Gell fuel in Unit 3 during Cycle 10 requires MCPR Safety Limits not less than 1.07 for two-loop operation and 1.08 for single loop operation.
The SLMCPR is determined using the NRC-approved methodologies described in
" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," NEDE-24011-P-A-10, February 1991 and " General Electric BWR Thermal Analysis Basis (GETAB):
- Data, Correlation and Design Application, "NED0-10958-A, January 1977 for two recirculation loop operation. The SLMCPR is increased by 0.01 for single loop operation as described in GETAB.
The SLMCPR is influenced by the critical power correlation and by bundle design parameters which affect the bundle R-factor distribution and the core radial power distribution.
These parameters include the spacer design assembly dimensional geometry, enrichment level and distribution, and fuel discharge exposure. Since the Gell fuel. design has significant design changes from previous designs, a recalculation of the SLMCPR is necessary.
9309030047 930618 PDR ADOCK 05000278PDR b P
[.'
i a i
! )
A Safety Limit MCPR of 1.07 (1.08 for single loop) has been approved by the i
NRC for D-or C-lattice plants operating with a reload core of Gell fuel.
PBAPS Unit 3 is a D-lattice plant and reload fuel for Cycle 10 is of the Gell design. Approximately, one-third of the core will be replaced with fresh Gell l
bundles. The only exception to the PBAPS Unit 3 Reload 9 (Cycle 10) batch is that four bundles of the SPC 9x9A design will be included.
The four Lead Use I
Assemblies (LUAs) will be loaded in non-limiting locations such that the LUAs l
will have no impact on the core wide Operating Limit Critical Power Ratio j
(OLMCPR). The LUAs will be evaluated for applicability of a SLMCPR of 1.07.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed TS changes on the Safety Limit, i
that Section 1.1.A; " Reactor Pressure 1 800 psia and Core Flow 2 10% of Rated," be revised to reflect the new limits for Gell fuel, i.e., "the present wording would remain the same except 1.07 and 1.08 would replace the present l
values of 1.06 and 1.07 for two loop and single loop operation, respectively."
l The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and determined that the proposed MCPR Safety Limits have been established in accordance with NRC-approved methods and are, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Comission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
{
Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined 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 exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (58 FR 12266). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical 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 the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Huang Date:
August 18, 1993
l l
i i i
REFERENCES 1.
Letter (TSCR 92-19) from G. J. Beck (PEco) to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated January 28, 1993.
2.
NEDE-31917P, "GE-Il Compliance with Amendment 22 of NEDE-240ll-P-A,"
April 1991.
l l
l l
i i
1 l
l t
i