ML20005E574
| ML20005E574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005E573 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001080184 | |
| Download: ML20005E574 (5) | |
Text
k UNITED sTAMS y
'*4 [5 NUCLE AR' REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 Nse+[
y V
_ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N05168 AhD 106 TO FAC_lLITY OPEFATING LICENSES DPR-57 AND NPF-5 CEORGI A POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION HUNIC~iPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CllY OF LALTON, GEORGIA-2 EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 L0CKET NOS. 50-32; AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
22,1985 (Ref.1), as amended and su By letter dated June 31,1989Property "Letter" (as page type) with input value "05000266/LER-1978-073-03, /03L on 781121:failure to Submit RO 50-366/78-55 W/In 30 Days.Caused by Deviation Rept 2-78-79 Not Received by Responsible Dept Head Nor Superintendent of Plant Engr Svcs.Personnel Were Reminded of ProceduresUnable to interpret the "June 31, 1989" input value as valid date or time component with "Month 6 in year 1989 did not have 31 days in this calendar model." being reported." contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. (Ref. * ) and October 4,1989 (Ref. 3)perseded by letters dated July c
, Georgia Pwer Company-(the licer.see) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The propcsed changes
_ ould modify specifications having cycle-specific parpeter limits by w
replacing the values of those limits with a reference to the Core Operating Limits. Report (COLR) for the values of those limits. The proposed changes include-the addition of the COLR to the Definitions sections and to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Centrols sections of TS.
Guidance on the proposed changes was developed by NRC on the basis cf the review of a lead-plant proposal submitted on the Oconee plant docket by Duke Power Company. This guidance was provided to all power reactor licensees anc hpplicants by_ Generic Letter 88-16 dateo October 4,1988 (Ref. 4).
In additicn, the licensee also proposed two other changes to the TS that would (1) reduce the-core power icvel below which Control Rod Program Control (CP,PC) operation.is required from 20 percent to 10 percent of rated thermal power; and1(E) revise the Bases and Definitions to permit use of NRC-approved transition boiling correlations other than GEXL.
2.0 EVALUATION The liter.see's proposed changes to the TS are in accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 88-16 and are acdressed below:
(1) The Definitico sections of the TS would be modifiea to ircluce a defiriition of the COLR that requires cycle /reloao-specific parameter limits to ' e established on a unit-specific basis in accordsnce with an o
NRC-approved methcc; ology that maintains the limits of the safety analysis.
The cefinition rotes that plant operation within these limits is addressed by indivioual specifications.
(T) The follswing specifications wculd be revised to replace the values of cycle-specific parameter limits with a reference to the COLR that provides these limits.
[OkNOON P
i
I l
-2 e
i Hatch. Unit 1
)
(a) Specification 3.11.A The average planar litter heat generation rate (APLHGR) limits for
{
this specification are specified in the COLR.
?'
(b) Specification 3.11.B The linear heat generation rate (LHGR) limit for this specification is specified in the COLR.
(c) Specifications 3.3.F and 3.11.C and Surveillance RequirHnint 4.11.C The minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) li;;;its for these 6
specifications and the surveillance requirements are specified in t ie COLR.
Hatch. Unit 2 I
(a) Specifications 3.14.3 end 3.2.3 and Surveillance Requirement 4.2.3 The MCPR limits for these specifications and the surveillance requirenent are specified in the COLR.
(b) Specification 3.2.1 and Surveillance Pnuirement 4.2.1 The APLHGR limits for this specification and surveillance requirement are specified in the COLR.
(c) Specification 3.2.4 and Surveillance Requirement 4.2.4 1
The LHGR limits for this specification and surveiiiance requirement are specified in the COLR.
The bases of affected specifications would be modified to include appropriate reference to the COLR.
(3) Specification 6.9.11 would be added to the reporting requirements of the Administrative Controls section of the TS for both Patch Units 1 and 2.
This specification requires that the COLR be submitted, upon issuance, to L
the NRC Document Control Desk with copies to the Regional Administrator i
and Resident Inspector. The report provides the values of cycle-specific parameter limits that are applicable for the current fuel cycle.
Furthermore, these specifications require that the values of these limits l
be established using NRC-a > proved methodologies and be consistent with all applicable limits of tie safety analysis. The approved methodologies are the following:
I 1
e
-.g.i
._g.-.-.
l 3
Hatch. Unit 1 (6) NEDE-44011-P-A, " General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel," (applicable amendant specified in the Core Operating Limits Report).
(b)
- Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Supporting Amendment No.157 to facility Operating License DPR-57,"
dated September 12, 1988, i
Hatch. Unit 2 (a) NEDE-24011-P-A, "Ceneral Electric Standard Applic6 tion for Reactor fuel," (applicable amendment specified in the Core Operating Limits Report).
(b) " Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Supporting Amendment Nos.101 and 89 to facility Operating License DPR-57 cnd NPF-5," dated January 22, 1988.
Finally, the specification requires that all changes in cycle-specific parameter limits be documented in the COLR before each reload cycle or remaining part of a reload cycle and submitted upon issuance to NRC, prior to operation with the new parameter limits.
On the basis of the review of the above items, the NRC staff concludes that the licensee provided an acceptable response to those items as addressed in the NRC guidance in Generic Letter 88-16 on modifying cycle-specific parameter limits in 15.
Because plant operation continues to be limited in accordance with the values of cycle-specific paraireter limits that are established using NRC-approved methodologies, the NRC staff concludes that the changes are ecministrative in nature and there is no impact on plant safety as a consequence. Accordingly, the staff finds that the proposed changes are acceptable, As part of the implementation of Generic Letter 88-16, the staff has also reviewed a sam)1e COLR that was provided by the licensee. On the basis of thit review, tie staff concludes that the format and content of the sample COLR are acceptable.
The' licensee also requested two other changes to the TS that would (1) reduce the core power level below which Control Red Program Control (CRPC) operation is required from 20 percent to 10 percent of rated thermai power; and
-(2) revise the Bases and Definitions to permit use of NRC-approved transition boiling correlations other than GEXL. The first change is based on NRC appreval of Amendnent 17 to Topical Report HED-24011-P-A (GESTAR-II).
The NRC safety evaluation re) ort (Ref. 5) approved the reduction in the power level at which the CRPCs are )ypassed from its current value of 20 percent to 10 percent of rated power. The evaluation performed in Reference 5 determined that, if the core power level exceeds 10 percent of rated theriral power, no control rod pattern can generate rod worths that would result in the fuel enthalpy
o
-4 i
l cxceeding the enthalpy limit of 280 cal /gm during the worst control rod drop l
accident. The second change allows the use of NRC-approved boiling transition correlations other than GEXL. This change recognizes that new, NRC-approved fuci designs and correlations are available to the toiling Water Reactor (BWR) utility cwners.
This change, therefore, is administrative in nature. We have reviewtd the changes to the Hatch Units 1 and 2 TS and Bases that have been made to accornodate these two issues and conclude, based on the considcrations ciscussed above, that they are accepttble.
In sumary, the NRC staff has reviewed the request by the licensee to modify the TS of Hatch Units 1 and 2 to remove the specific values of some cycle-dependent parameters from the specifications and place the values in a COLR that would be referenced by the specification.
Based on this review, we concluoe that these TS modifications are acceptable.
The staff also reviewed the changes to the TS and Bases that would (1) reduce the core power level below which CRPC operation is required from 20 percent to 10 percent and (2) permit the use of 1:RC-approved boiling transition correlaticns other than GEXL.
The staf f concludes that these changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments change requirements with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Fart 20. The staf f has cetermined that the amendnents involve no significant increase in the amounts and no significant change in the types, of any effluents thatmaybereleasedofIsite,andthatthereisnosignificantincreasein individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has
?reviously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant 1azards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Acccrdingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9,. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environnental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepa, red in conhection with the issuance of the amendments.
l
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission n.ade a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (54 FR 46147) on November 11, 1989, and consulted with the State of Ceorgia.
No public coments were received, and the State of Georgia did not have any comments.
He have concluced, based on the considerations discussed above tha t: (1) there isreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthepub1Icwillnotbe endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in conpliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendn.ents will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the j
health and safety of the public.
l l
l l
I i
t-o-
I 5.C REFERENCES 1.
Letter (HL-246) from W. G. Hairston,111 (GPC) to NRC, dated June 22,1989.
2.
Letter (HL-E61) from W. G. Hairston, 111 (GPC) to NRC, dated July 31, 1989.
3.
- Letter (HL-709) f rom W. G. H" sten, III (GPC) to NRC, dated October 4,1989.
4.
Ceneric Letter 88-16 "T
Technical Specifications.emoval of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits frcm
" dated October 4, 1989.
1 5.
Letter from Ashek C. Thadani (NRC) to J.S. Charnley (GE), " Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report NEDE-24011-P-A, ' General Electric Standard Applic6 tion for Reactor Fuel,' Revision E, Amencuent 17."
Principal Contributor: Daniel Fieno, SRXB/ DST Dated: December 29, 1989 l
l l
l l