ML19259C587
| ML19259C587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1979 |
| From: | Whitmer C GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19259C588 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907170066 | |
| Download: ML19259C587 (3) | |
Text
b comon.Powy cunne.,r i
m v1.wra.: w.m st o% <. Im 4sas A;;; nts (corge 300 i Tegnore 4G4 R/ WI; n.
cha.. r. wht:mer July 9, 1979 Georgia Power Vice Pucsident Engmeenng th < em ' " U '
'm Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321 AND 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57 AND NPF-5 I
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 SPENT FUEL POOL STORAGE EXPA'1SION Gentlemen:
Georgia Power Company hereby submits appilcation for the expansior of i
the spent fuel storage capacity of Plant Hatch - Units 1 and 2.
High density spent fuel storage racks would replace existing spent fuel racks.
General Electric Company will design and supply the high density spent fuel storage racks.
Applications to install similar type atorage racks have been previously reviewed and approved by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use at the Monticello and Browns Ferry nuclear facilities.
In accecdance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), included with this application are proposed changes to pertinent sections of the Technical Specific itions for both unita.
Also, we desire l
changes to the operating licenses for both units making it explicit that fuel i
discharged from either unit may be s~ored in either fuel pool, as was - iginally I
planned atA discussed in the units' Safety Analysis Reports.
Georgia Power Company has evaluat d how various factors and constraints may affect installation and schedule options. Based on this evaluation, it
}
is most desirable to cot =:ence installation of the replacement his;h density spent fuel storage racks by March 1980.
This would permit completion of the majority of the critical installation operations prior to storing spent fuel 6
in the Unit 2 pool, thereby, significantly minimizing personnel exposures to I
radiation as well as eliminating the possibility of contaminating the existing Unit 2 racks. Expeditious review and approval would enhance the option of performing seme of these installation activities while the Unit 2 pool is dry. Based on the foregoing considerations, together with others presented j
in the enclosed, it is most important that the NRC publish notice of this g
application protnptly and that a timely review unedule be established.
To further discuss our schedules and plans and the NRC staff's review schedule, we hereby request a meeting with the NRC staff at your cat J Lest convenience. Please let us know when such a meeting can be arranged.
2104 084 1
7907170 C M i
p2
(h r
Georgia Power ah Director of Nucicar Reactor Regulation U. S. Nucicar Regulatory Commission July 9, 1979 Page Two We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed within this application, that the safety concerns identified in the Plant Hatch Safety Analysis Reports and previously reviewed by the NRC and found to be acceptable are not significantly altered by storing additional quantities of spent fuel at Plant Hatch.
The Plant Review Board and corporate Safety Review Board have found that this modification is not an unreviewed safety question.
Yours very truly, rT' ') D O
v'
~
~
_/-
l LCW vf
- Chas. F. Whitmer LTG/mb
Enclosures:
(1) Prcposed Determination of Amendment Class (2) Propc, sed Changes to Technical Specifications (3)
Design Report and Safety Evaluation worn to and subscr bed before me this 9th day of July, 1979.
{T; - < /!
0fn /N Ita rubr:e. Ceorgia. Stato lilg* Public
'1 1931 xc:
W. E. Ehrensperger R. A. Thomas George F. Trowbridge, Esquire 2104 085
e ATTACHMENT 1 NRC DOCKETS 50-321 AND 50-366 OPERATIEG LICENSES DPR-57 AND NPF-5 EDWIN I. IIATCl! NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF AFENDMENT CLASS Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12 (c), Georgia Power Company has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating Licenses DPR-57 and NPF-5 and have determined that:
a)
The proposed amendment does not require the evaluation of a new Safety Analysis Report or rewrite of the facility license; b)
The proposed amendment does not contain several compicx issues, does not involve ACRS review, or does not require an environmental impact statement; c)
The proposed amendment does not involve a complex issue, an environ-mental issue or more than one safety issue; d)
The proposed amendment does involve a single issue; namely, the replacement of existing spent fuel storage racks with high density spent fuel storage racks; e)
The proposed amendment is therefore a Class III amendment.
2104 086
.