ML20126L272
| ML20126L272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126L270 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-43589, NUDOCS 8106020169 | |
| Download: ML20126L272 (3) | |
Text
~,0 ug\\
UNITED STATES
/
fi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN
(] {I j c b
, KY l2
?tASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 dikj'
'...s SAFETY E'/ALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
' SUPPORTING AMEND!*ENT NO. 86 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OP"l-57 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA ECWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO.1 20CKET NO. 50-321 1.0 Introduction 5y letter dated March 5,1981 (Ref.1) Georgia ?cwer Comoany (the licensee) pro-posed changes to the Tecnnical Specifications (TSs) of Hatch 1.
The prcoosec changes relate to the core for Cycle 5 operation at power levels uo to 2,436 mit (ICO S po',ter).
In support of the reload applicaticn, the licensee enclosed pro-posed TS changes in Reference 1 and the General Electric (GE) BWR supplenental licensing submittal /Ref. 2).
This reload involves loading of propressurized GE 3x3 retrofit (F8x3R) fuel.
The licensee is not taking any credit in his transient or accident analyses for the prepress urized fuel.
Tne description of the nuclear and echanical e.esigns of 2.<S retrofit is centained in References 3 and a.
Reference 3 also contains a complete set of references of topical recorts which describo GE's analytical nethods for nuclear, ther al-hydraulic, transient and accident calculations,
and information regarding the applicability of these nethods to cores containing a mixture of fuel. The use and safety implications of prepressurized fuel have been found acceptable per Reference 4 The conclusions of Reference 5 found that the nethods of Reference 3 '.lere generally apolicable to prepressurized fuel. Therefore, unless other,9ise specified, Reference 3, as supported by Reference 5, is adequate justification for the current application of propres-surized fuel.
2.0 Evaluation 2.1 Reactor Physics The reload application folicws the procedure described in NEDE-240ll-?, " Generic Reload Fuel Application". We have reviewed this application and the ccnsequent TS changes.
The transient analysis input parameters are typical for 3WRs and are acceptable.
Core wide transient analysis results are given for the liniting transients, and the required operating limit values for nininun critical po',ter ratio (MCPR) are given for each fuel type.
The revised MCPR lirnits are required by the reload, and they are acceptable.
8106020/69
- ~ v i
2.2 Thermal Hydraulics As stated in Reference 3, for BWR cores which reload with GE's retrofit 8x3R fuel, the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) resulting from either core-wide or localized abnomal operational transients l
is equal to 1.07.
When meeting this SLMCPR during a transient, at least j
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 abnomal operational transient or fuel misloading, the most limiting events have been reanalyzed for this reload by the licensee in order to detemine which event results in the largest reduction in the These events have been analyzed for the exposed fuel and fresh fuel.
MCPR.
Addition of the largest reductions in critical power ratio to the SLMCPR were used in the MCPR TS to establish the operating limits for each fuel h
f ty pe.
We have found the methods used for this analysis consistent with previously l
approved past practice (Ref. 3). We have found the results of this analysis t
and the corresponding TS changes acceptable.
3.0 Envircnmental Considerations We have detemined that the amendment d:es not authori:e a change l
in effluent ty:es'or t:tal am:unts nor an increase in Ocwer level and will not result in any sicnificant environmental impa::. Having made this determination, we have furtner : ncluded that tre amendment involves an a:ticn whicn is insignificant fr r the standpcint of environmental impa:: and, pursuan to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(a), : hat an environmental impact statement, or negative declara:icn and environ-f mental impact a; raisai need n:t be prepared in conne: tion wi:h the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 Conclusion We have encluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) be:3. se the amencment d:es n t inv:lve a significant increase in the probability er consequences of accidents previously censidered and does not involve a sicnificant de:rease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a signi#icant ha:ards consideration, (2) there is reas:nable assurance tnat the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by c;eration in the pro:: sed renner, and (3) such activities will be : ndu:ted in ccm:lian:e with the C: m issien's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the :en:n cefense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Cated: May 28,1981
~
-_ REFERENCES
-1.
Letter, Georgia Pcwer Company to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-(USNRC), dated March 6,1981.
2.
" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Reload d", dated July 1980.
3.
" General Electric Boiling' Water R'eactor Generic Reload Application",
NEDE-240ll-P-A, May 1977.
4 Letter, R. E. Engel (GE) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, dated January 30, 1979.
5.
Letter,' T. A. Ippolito (USNRC) to R. Gridley (GE),' April 16, 1979, and enclosed SER.
l t