ELV-00696, Submits Supplemental Info Re Rev to Tech Spec 5.3.1.Rev Necessary in Order That Higher Enrichment Fuel May Be Used for Plant,Starting W/Cycle 3

Submits Supplemental Info Re Rev to Tech Spec 5.3.1.Rev Necessary in Order That Higher Enrichment Fuel May Be Used for Plant,Starting W/Cycle 3

ML20247A001
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	07/17/1989
From:	Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
ELV-00696, ELV-696, TAC-73595, TAC-73596, NUDOCS 8907210093
Download: ML20247A001 (5)

Text

._-___-____

ana u w n cu ,,

, , 3'!.3 W 1r A F n t Atan Lc r.;2

.w, wo m Ma ",

{y ;

a ,

a '  !

J. . . (

g'" f W. G. Hairrdon, W h,l'M ELV-00696 July 17, 1989 1529n U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 PLANT YOGTLE - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-424, 50-425 OPERATING LICENSES NPF-68, NPF-81 REVISION TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 5.3.1 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Gentlemen:

By letter ELV-00511 dated June 12, 1989, Georgia Power Company (GPC) proposed to amend the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, Appendix A to Operating Lf: enses NPF-68 and NPF-81. The proposed amendment revises the allowable reload fuel enrichment from 3.5 to 4.55 weight percent U-235.

Georgia Power Company hereby supplements the information contained in its letter ELV-00511 by the additional information contained in the enclosure to this letter. This enclosure documents an evaluation which demonstrates that the proposed amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion setfort'n in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment needs to be prepared in connection with t@ issuance of the amendment.

The proposed Technical Specification amendment is necessary in order that higher enrichment fuel may be used starting with Cycle 3 for VEGP Unit 1. The reload fuel, to be loaded into the VEGP Unit 1 reactor core at the beginning of Cycle 3 will be of the standard Westinghouse design which is currently licensed for use in VEGP Units 1 and 2. Cycle 3 is a transitional cycle to higher burnup longer operating cycles. The batch average burnup for fuel to be discharged at the end of Cycle 3 will be about 35,000 MWD /MTV, which is below the value of 38,000 MWD /MTU which is considered the transition point to extended burnup fuel and is less than the maximum baich average burnup of approximately 36,000 MWD /MTU used in developing the core fission product inventories for the safety analyses presented in Chnter 15 of the VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). It is noted that the source terms in table 15A.4 of the FSAR which were used for the Fuel Handlir.g Accident are consistent with those presented in Westinghouse Topicai report WCAP-10125

" Extended Burnup Evaluation of Westinghouse Fuel" for a bmenup of 48,000 MWD /MTU. However, the expected batch average discha.N at the end of Cycle 3 will be slightly higher than the value of 33,000 MWD /MJU assumed in 10 CFR 51.52 and referenced in the VEGP Final Environmental Statement. Therefore, the NRC requested that environmental considerations of increased enrichment and burnup be addressed in conjunction with the request for the Technical Specification change for reload fuel enrichment.

8907210093 890717 n' 0 ['

PDR ADOCK 05009424 P PDC

')

corgia PowerkA The NRC has evaluated the consequences of the widespread use of extended burnup fuel with enrichments up to 5 weight percent U-235 and with batch average burnups up to 50,000 MWD /MTU and peak rod burnups of 60,000 MWD /MTV.

The NRC conclusions were documented in the Federal Register dated February 29, 1988 entitled " Extended Burnup Fuel Use in Commercial LWRs; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact." The categorical exclusion requested by this letter is for batch average burnups of 36,000 MWD /MTU.

Prior to Cycle 4 of VEGP Unit 1 GPC will submit revised safety analyses to the NRC in support of the use of the Westinghouse VANTAGE 5 fuel design.

Those revised safety analyses will included the effects of increased burnups beyond those expected for the 3rd cycle.

Cycle 3 for VEGP Unit 1 is not expected to begin until the Spring of 1990 however the Technical Specification change raquested by our letter of ELV-00511 is necessary in order to begin receipt of new fuel by October 1, 1989 Therefore, GPC requests that the NRC give timely consideration to the Technical Specification change request which it supplemented by this letter.

Mr. W. G. Hairston, III states that he is a Senior Vice President of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Company and that, to the best of his knowledg? and belief, the facts set forth in this letter and enclosure are true.

1 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY By: _

4/. d N p W. G. Hairston, III Sworn to and subscribed before me this /7b day of July,1989.

7W1 it Y [h bNb"P ENEc.15,1m WGH,III/HWM/gm

Enclosure:

xc: Georgia Power Company Mr. C.~ K. McCoy Mr. G. Bockhold, Jr.

Mr. R. M. Odom Mr. J. P. Kane NORMS i Southern Company Servi ~s-l Mr. L. B. Long Mr. J. L. Leamon U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator Mr. J. B. Hopkins, Licensing Project Manager, NRR Mr. J. F. Rogge, Senior Resident Inspector, Vogtle

1 ENCLOSURE O PLANT YOGTLE - UNITS 1, '2 .

NRC DOCKETS 50-424, 50-425 i OPERATING LICENSES NPF-68, NPF REVISION TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 5.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

Background

The environmental considerations in support of the' operating. license for VEGP 'j Units 1 and .2 included considerations based on maximum batch average-discharge burnups of 33,000 MWD /MTU. The use of longer fuel cycles and increased cycle burnup has resulted in this request-to raise the maximum enrichment of reload fuel . Therefore, the environmental impacts of 'such changes have been I considered'in order to determine if a revision to.the environmental impact ]

statement or environmental assessment is warranted. Although the license 1 amendment under consideration is only for increased. reload fuel enrichment I this evaluation discusses the anticipated increase in discharge burnup. The '

environmental effects of the widespread use of extemied burnug fuel has been-extensively studied and documented in NUREG/CR-5009 entitled Assessment'of the Use of Extended Burnup Fuel in Light Water Power Reactors," and in AIF/NESP-032 "The Environmental Consequences of Higher Fuel Burnup". The studies documented within these two reports demonstrate that the environmental  !

impacts summarized in Table S-3 of 10 CFR 51.51 and in Table S-4 of 10 CFR j 51.52 are conservative and bound the corresponding impacts for maximum average i burnup levels up to 50,000 MWD /MTU and 5% enrichment, (and peak rod burnups of l 60,000 MWD /MTU) and that there are no significant adverse radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the use of extended burnup fuel. The NRC has also reviewed these studies and documented its concurrence with these l, conclusions in a public notice " Extended Burnup Fuel Use in Commercial LWRs; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact", dated February j 29, 1988. j 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(9) provides criterion for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion. Such actions do not require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. In i accordance with criterion (c)(9) a proposed amendment to an operating license does not require an environmental assessment if operation of the facility in i accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a s1 hazards consideration; (2) result in a significant change-in the types 9.dftcant or significant increase in the amount of any effluents that may be released ,

offsite; and (3) result in an increase in individual or cumulative i occupational radiation exposure. Georgia Power Comparty has reviewed this request and determined that the proposed amendment meets the criteria for categorical exclusion setforth in 10 CFR 51.22 ic)(9). Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22 (b) an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is not required in connection with the proposed license amendment.  !

l Proposed Change The proposed change will revise the allowable reload fuel enrichment from 3.5 weight percent l'-235 to 4.55 weight percent L-235 1

E__i.______________ .__m ___.____.s

. _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ m-

l l

1 .- . .

ENCLOSURE (CONTINUED) I PLANT Y0GTLE - UNITS 1, 2 i NRC DOCKETS 50-424, 50-425 i OPERATIi4G LICENSES NPF-68, NPF-81 REVISION 7; TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 5.3.1 -

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Bases The proposed change meets the three requirements of 10-CF2 51.22 (c)(9) as discussed below:

(1) Does not involve a significant hazards consideration; Enclosure 2 to Georgia Power letter ELV-00511 demonstrates that this revision to the Technical Specifications does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Cycle 3 for VEGP Unit 1 is expected to start in.

the Spring of 1990. The batch average burnup for fuel to be discharged at the end of Cycle 3 is about 35,000 MWD /MTU which is less than the 36,000  !

MWD /MTU used for the VEGP Safety Analyses as indicated in table 15A-3 of ')

the Final Safety Analysis Report. Prior to the commencement of Cycle 4 }

for VEGP Unit 1 GPC will submit revised safety analyses for the NRC's I revi ew. Cycle 4 for Unit 1 is scheduled to start in the Fall of 1991. 1 Those safety analyses will address the use of VANTAGE 5 fuel for VEGP Units 1 and 2 and will consider the effects of extended burnup beyond 36,000 MWD /MTV.

(2) Does not result in a significant change in the types or significant increases in the amount of any effluents that may be released offsite.  ;

The proposed amendment does not result in a significant change in the type or significant increase in the amounts of any. effluents that may be released offr.ite. The proposed amendment allows an increase in fuel enrichment 240 3.5 h 4.55 weight percent U-235. Based on extensive studies as occumented in NUREG/CR-5009 " Assessment of the Use of Extended 3urnup Fuels in Light Water Power Reactors" it has been concluded that ,

tSerc are no significant adverse radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the use of extended peak rod burnups up' to 60,000 MWD /MTV ,

and fuel enrichments up to 5.0 weight percent U-235. This conclusion was documented by the NRC ir a public notice " Extended Burnup Fuel Use in Commercial LWRs: Environmental Assessment and Findings of No Significant Impact", dated February 29, 1988. Georgia Power Comparly' has reviewed NUREG/CR-5009 and determined that the increased enrichment and an associated increased burnup from 23,000 MWD /MTV to 36,000 MWD /MTU will not i result in a significant change in the types or significant increase in the l amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite. I 1

I l

- ,- i l

ENCLOSURE (CONTINUED):

PLANT V0GTLE - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-424, 50-425 OPERATING LICENSES NPF-68, NPF-81 REVISION TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION 5.

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

(3) Does not result in an increase in individual or cumulative. occupational radiation exposure;.

~ As stated in the public notice: referenced above,. " Extended Burnup Fueh use in Commercial LWRs; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact", the slight increase in long-lived radionuclides as a result of:

extended burnup fuel will be offset by reduced fuel. handling such that-the impacts on workers- and the general . population wil.1 -be reduced.' This also included an assessment of. accidents that involve damage to fuel and fuel .

transportation accidents. The slight increase in radioactive inventory of extended burnup fuel is not significant relative to accident doses due.to the small increase in inventory, the-low probability of such accidents and-the NRC staff's practice of conservative interpretation of the dose guidelines. Westinghouse has evaluated the effects of increased burnup on the core inventory of fission products as teported 1. WCAP-10125 and.-

detennined that dose consequences presented.in safety analysis reports-would not change significantly as a result of extended burnups. Georgia Power Company has reviewed NUREG-5009, WCAP-10125 and the public notice and concurs that any increased burnup associated with the increase in reload fuel enrichment and burnup increase from 33,000 MWD /MTU to 36,000 MWD /MTU will have an insignificant effect on overall risk.

Conclusion Since the proposed revision is consistent with the criteria for categorical exclusion setforth in 10 CFR 51.22 (c)(9) Georgia Power Company has concluded that no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment' needs to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

l l

l y

I q

i l

l,