ML20135F861
| ML20135F861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135F859 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509170449 | |
| Download: ML20135F861 (4) | |
Text
-
[
o UNITED STATES E
~,j e,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.114 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. 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 j
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 7, 1985, as amended by letter dated April 1, 1985, Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) made application to amend the Technical Specifications (TSs) of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, to permit reloading and operation of the unit for Cycle 7.
In support of this application, the licensee submitted a reload report (Reference 1), an update of the loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analysis (Reference 2) and a supplemental reload report (Reference 4).
1.1 Description of the Proposed Amendment Changes Relating to the Cycle 7 Core The proposed amendment to the Peach Bottom Unit 3 TSs would:
1)
Revise the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) limits from Beginning of Cycle (BOC) to 2000 MWD /t before End of Cycle (EOC), and 2)
Provide Maximum Average Planar Linear Heat Generation Rate (MAPLHGR) limits for all fuel types inserted for Cycle 7.
Each of these changes to the TSs is discussed in Section 2.5 below.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Fuel Mechanical Design The fuel to be inserted into the core for Cycle 7 is simila: to that customarily used for BWR reloads and is described in Reference 2.
This report has been approved by the NRC staff (Reference 3), and we conclude that no further review of the fuel mechanical design is required.
8509170449 850823 PDR ADOCK O 28 P
. 2.2 Nuclear Design The nuclear design and analysis of the Cycle 7 reload was performed with methods and techniques which are described in Reference 2 and which are used in all reload analyses performed by General Electric. The results of the analysis are within the range of those customarily found for reload cores and are acceptable. We conclude that the nuclear design and analysis of the Cycle 7 reload is acceptable.
2.3 Thermal-Hydraulic Design The methods and procedures employed in the thermal-hydraulic design and analysis of the Cycle 7 core are described in Reference 2.
The value of 1.07 for the safety limit MCPR, approved in that reference, is used for Cycle 7.
The methods and procedures used to obtain the operating limit MCPR were those described in Reference 2 and are acceptable. We conclude that the thermal-hydraulic design and analysis of the Peach Bottom 3 Cycle 7 core is acceptable.
2.4 Transient and Accident Analyses The transient and accident analyses for Cycle 7 have been performed with the i
methods in Reference 2.
Because the transient and accident analyses have been performed by previously approved methods and the results meet our acceptance criteria, we conclude that they are acceptable.
2.5 Technical Specifications The proposed changes identify the fuel operating limits for Cycle 7 operation.
2.5.1 MAPLHGR Limits The MAPLHGR limits in the proposed TS changes are consistent with those in Reference 1 and are acceptable.
2.5.2 MCPR Values The proposed TS change involves the MCPR values from BOC to 2000 MWD /t before EOC. We have reviewed the proposed change and conclude that it is in agreement with the analyses in Reference 4.
We therefore find this change acceptable.
s
. '0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have 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 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 eligibilit criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)y.
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
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the 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.
Dated:
August 23, 1985 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
M. Chatterton
1
References:
1.
GESTAR II
" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel",
NEDE-24011-P-A-6, April 1983
-i 2.
Errata and Addenda Sheet No. 6 to NED0-24082, LOCA Analysis for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3, November 1984 3.
GESTAR II, Appendix C 4
4.
" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 3 Reload 6" General Electric Document #23A4600, March 1985
't
'\\
s G
A 4
- -,, + - - -
,-s
, y c-,
m,--
s