ML20078Q983
| ML20078Q983 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1983 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19283C090 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-52448, NUDOCS 8311140276 | |
| Download: ML20078Q983 (8) | |
Text
.
g
?
i a
f UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA l
DOCKET NO. 50-321 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO il FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS i
CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING j
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-57, issued to Georgia Power Company (GPC), Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric 1
l Authority of Georgia, and City of Dalton, Georgia, (the ifcensees), for operation of the Cdwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1 (the facility),
located in Appling County, Georgia.
]
The proposed amendment would revise the Hatch Unit 1 Technical h
~
j Specifications to 1) accomodate the replacement of leaking fuel assemblies, and 2) extend the allowable fuel burnup limit from 30 gigawatt days per ton (Gwd/ ) to 40 Gwd/. The proposed amendment includes 1) numerical changes t
t l
)
8311140276 831027 PDR ADOCK 05000321 j
P PDR n
- ~. - -. -
2-to four curves that specify maximum average planar linear heat generation rate (MAPLHGR) limits to specify allowable MAPLHGR limits for burnup beyond 30 Gwd/, 2) numerical changes to two curves that specify minimum critical t
{
power ratio (MCPR) limits, 3) modification of the nomenclature on two additional MAPLHGR curves to make them consistent with the nomenclature on the other MAPLHGR curves and the listing of an additional type of fuel assembly not previously used in Hatch 1 as being covered by one of l
these two curves, and 4) the addition of three new MAPLHGR c,urves
[
that provide limiting values for three more additional types of fuel i
assemblies that have not been previously used in Hatch Unit 1.
These four additional fuel assembly types may be used to replace the leaking i
fuel assemblies that have been removed from the Hatch Unit 1 core. All i
four additional fuel assembly types are 8X8 assemblies that have been i
previously irradiated in the Hatch Unit 2 core and that are available in the I
fuel storage pool. These changes are in accordance with the licensees' application for amendment dated September 29, 1983, as supplemented October 24, 1983.
s I
(
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) a'nd the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant
?
k 1
-p---
-, y --
,p,--
,---y r._,..,,yy_
,,-s.,p.,,
_. -y,s
,y.,.
-c.-,.-._-,,_.,
.,.--.,,.-__,.-r-yy, c..
7-
e f
4 accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
y i
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of a
these standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870). One of the examples of actions likely to involve no significant hazards considerations i
relates to reload amendments involving no fuel assemblies significantly I
j different than those previously found acceptable at the facility in question (example ii). This amendment involves replacement of leaking i
fuel assemblies. Such a replacement is similar in effect to a limited q
]
reload and while some of the fuel assemblies involved in this application are somewhat different from those previously authorized for Hatch Unit No.1, i.e., some 8X8 replacement assemblies have slightly if
'different dimensions from the 8X8 assemblies currently authorized for use 1
in Hatch Unit 1, the Coninission proposes to determine that the application does not involve a significant hazards consideration since fuel elements of
]
this design have been previously reviewed and approved for use in Hatch Unit
- tj No. 2.
While there are some differences between Hatch Unit No. I and Hatch
]:)
Unit No. 2 operating characteristics which require a plant specific analysis
'l
]
for the use of the' new fuel, these differences are not significant.
l
[
Another of the examples of actions likely to involve no significant h
hazards considerations relates to a change which eitKer may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously-analyzed accident i
or may reduce in some way a safety margin, but where the results of the hj change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system I
for example, a change 1
or component specified in the Standard Review Plan:
j resulting from application of a small refinement of a previously used il" calculational model or design method (example vi).
k
.i
. j The NRC staff, in a letter dated February 3,1982, informed GPC that it would accept General Electric positions that " credit for approved but L
4 unapplied Emergency Core Cooling System evaluation model changes be used to offset MAPLHGR penalties on operating reactors due to high burnup fission gas release."
GPC has referenced its use of this credit in proposing j
MAPLHGR limits for fuel burnup in excess of 30 Gwd/
and has stated that t
1 the results of this proposed change meet the Emergency Core Cooling
.)
System criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix K.
These are the criteria for acceptable accident analysis results specified 1j by the Standard Review Plan. We conclude, therefore, that the proposed q
extension of MAPLHGR curves to fuel burnup beyond 30 Gwd/
fits example vi.
t O
q Still another of the examples of actions likely to involve no significant d
hazards considerations relates to a purely administrative change to technical j
specifications: for example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the I
technical specifications, correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature (eS$mple 1)..The modification of the nomenclature on two curves fits this
'exampl e.
Accordingly,, the Commission proposes to determine that these changes
]
[ do not involve a signfficant hazards consideration.
1
]j ;/
/
The Commission is seeking public coments on this proposed determination.
f Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission l
f.
o 4~<
will not normally make a final determination unless it recefves a request for 4j a hearing.
j i.
)
(
q '. 4
]
I/
i r
l
~
f f
)
/
1
.- ~
. Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.
By December 2,1983, the licensees may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or p:?tition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 52.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and j
how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The peti-tion should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be pennitted j
with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the i
petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in I
the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify 1
1
a_.
9
- the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which a
petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days' prior to the first pre-ti hearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition
,j
. must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
j Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference 1
]j scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the
]
' petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are
.t.
j sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set
]-
forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters
]
within the scope of the amendment.under consideration. A petitioner who
{!
fails to file such a' supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
I ij Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject h
to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the oppor.tunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including
)
q the opportunity to preseat evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
N i
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determina-1 tion on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final f
determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
1 If the final detemination is that the amendment request involves no d
significant hazards consideration,,the Commission may issue the amendment e
e
u.,
I,
e and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any '
hearing beld would take' place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance
_of any amendment.
Normally, the Comission will not issue the amendment until the expiration j.
of the 30-day notice, period. However, should circumstances change during the
]
notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Comission may issue-the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided i
that i.ts final determination is that t,he amendment involves no significant
' hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and l
State coments received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after t
i issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
j A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed j
with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,
}
Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be 4j' delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
?
Washington, D. C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the 1
1.
last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner l
1 promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following e
7_
n
. message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number; g
" ~
date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number I
of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to G. F. Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge,1800 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
20006, attorney for the licensees.
i
]
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not'be entertained 4
absent a determination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the j
granting of a late petition and/or request. That determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is iailable for public inspection at the Comission's 9
Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
20555, and at
}
the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
i l
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of October 1983.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
l
]g Jo W F. Stolz, Chief j Op rating Reactors Branch No. 4 g
vision of Licensing
!o
- - - - - - - - - - -