ML19350A547

Application for Amend to License DPR-57,incorporating Revised Tech Specs for Cycle 5 Operation W/Reload 4 Fuel Inserted

ML19350A547
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	03/06/1981
From:	Winder W GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19350A548	List: ML19350A547 ML19350A551
References
TAC-43589, NUDOCS 8103160461
Download: ML19350A547 (3)

Text

• 1 ,[. ,c.

. + , , ..

f 1 I

< L W. A. Widner Georgia Power 7: 0 wwt -

March 6, 1981 ,

, , , ,7, . , y ,

p A

+

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e'ea[p'

/4qN Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation C- 26 9 Washington, D. C. 20555 *g. , g -

OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 g 'ig EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 -

RELOAD 4 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 62ntlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), Georgia Power Company hereby proposes an amendment to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the Operating License). The proposed amendment will ircorporate revised specifications for cycle 5 operation with the Reload 4 fuel inserted. The enclosed topical report prepared by General Electric Company for Georgia Power Company, Y1003J01A13, July 1980,

" Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Reload 4", presents the results of plant unique analyses performed for Reload 4. Also enclosed are the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to implement the results of these analyses.

The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications provide cycle 5 specific Operating Limit MCPR values. Pressurization transient MCPR values were calculated using ODYN. Ncn-pressurization events were calculated using REDY. The determination of the Operating Limit MCPR for each fuel type was made using the same methodology developed in the Unit 2 cycle 2 submittal as discussed in our letter of January 30, 1981.

It should be noted that some of the constants in the equation specifying TS are different tr<a those shown in the January 30, 1981, letter in support of the Unit 2 Tecmical Specifications. The Unit 2 values were cased on statistical analysis of rod insertion times to notch 36, because the Unit 2 Technical Specification surveillance requirements for scram time testing specify notch 36. The Unit 1 surveillance requirements are based on 20% insertion. The statistical values of mean and standard deviation for 20%

insertion are 0.710 and 0.053, respectively.

9 h

8108160 6\ \

Georgia Power A U. S. MJClear: Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Page Two March 6, 1981 The Plant Review Board and the Safety Review Board have reviewed the proposed changes to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications and have concluded that no changes in plant operation are involved and that operation within the limits as revised by this submittal 'will maintain existing margins to thermal limits. Thus, the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety, nor has the possibility of a previously unanalyzed accident or malfunction of equipment been created. Transient and accident analyses were performed using approved codes. Thus, margins of safety have not been decreased.

W. A. Widner states that he is 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 knowledge and belia f the facts set forth in this letter are true.

Georgia Power Company by: ~

I[7/ W. A. Widner v//

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of March 1981.

' Notary Public

s -f Notary Public, Gecrgia, Stata at Large i' My Commission Expires Sept. 20,1983

' RDB/mb,',

Attactynents xc: M. Manry R. F. Rogers, III

~ .

1

ATTACHMENT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-321 OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

- Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12 (c), Georgia Power Company has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating License DPR-57 and has 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 complex issues, does not involve ACRS review, and does not require an environmental impact statement; c) The- proposed ~ amendment does not involve a complex issue, an ; environmental issue or more than one safety issue; d) .The proposed amendment does involve a single safety issue, namely, .the changing of operating . MCPR - values for cycle 5~ operation. '~

4 e) The propose'd change is. ~therefore a -Class III.

. amendment.

l-e i:

e 4

4

'r '

(:s.

_ ~