ML20082Q318
| ML20082Q318 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/28/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082Q246 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109120090 | |
| Download: ML20082Q318 (3) | |
Text
_ _ - - _ _ _
6,3 Ktog*o b
4 "g
1\\
UNITED STc YES n
3,
,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O'
I WASHINoToN, D C. 20005 y..... j/
t j
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
l RELATED-TO AMENDMENT NO.172 TO FACILITY OPERATING = 8.1 CENSE DPR-57 i
8 AND AMENDMENT NO.112 T0-FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 i
GEORGIA' POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
-EDWIN 1. HATCH NUC'. EAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 i
i DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 i
i i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 13, 1991, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) proposed the following changes to tfie Edwin 1.= Hatch Nuclear Plant} Units 1 and
-Technical Specifications (TSs).
Proposed Change 1 would revise _(a Unit 1 TS l
3.10.D, Unit 2 TS 3/4.9.10 and their associated bases to require at least 21 l
' feet of water above 1rradiated fuel assemblies seated in the spent fuel pool (SFP) fuel storage racks; and (b) Unit 1 TS 4.10.D to require surveillance of i
the SFP water level every:7 days consistent with Unit 2 TSs and the BWR-4 i'
Standard TSs.. Proposed Change 2 would revise Unit 1 TS Tables 3.2-11 and 4.2-11 to require that the post-LOCA (Loss of Coolant Accident) radiation monitors be calibrated at-least once every 18 months. - Proposed Change 3 would correct administrative errors-in Unit 2 TS Tables 3.3.2-1 and 3.8.2.6-1.
2.0 EVALUATION
[
t a.
Proposed Change 1
-j The licensee stated that the as-built configuration of the Hatch SFPs does not support the current TS requirement of at least 23 feet of water above the irradiated fuel assemblies seated in the SFP high density storage racks, when-water depth is measured from the' top of the stored assembly upper-tie plate to j
-the low level SFP alarm. With these reference points, the Hatch SFPs cannot p
support-the 23 foot rtquirement but can-support only 21 feet.
In actuality, y
there has-been no physical change to the Hatch SFPs-but rather there has been a recognition that water depth should he measured from the top of the upper tie 01 ate to the low level SFP alarm. -The licensee has evaluated the relevant fuel 1andling accident analyses using 21 feet'from the top of the fuel assembly-I upper tie plate to the low-level SFP alarm. The. licensee's calculated thyroid l
exposures atLthe exclusion area = boundary (EAB):and low population zone (LPZ)~
were 0.358 and 0.370 rem respectively, for 21 f eet.
In its dose calculations, l
the licensee assumed (1),0.34t of the total radioactive iodine in the failed i
fuel rods is released at the time of the accident, and (2) the decontamination i
factor (DF) of 71.6 with the pool water depth of 21 feet. The licensee calculated
~
the DF using.the methodology provided in a reference in Standard Review Plan f
(SRP).Section 15.7.4 and the staff finds it to be acceptable.
However, item
[
(1)'above is not acceptable to the staff because a technical-basis was not f
provided for~ deviating from Regulatory Position c.1.d in SRP Section 15.7.4 which delineates the total radioactive iodine released from the failed fuel j
rods at the. time of the accident to be 10%.
j 9109120090 910028 PDR ADOCK 05000321 i
P PDH
-I
, In NUREG-0411. " Safety Evaluation Report related to Operation of Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2 " dated June 1978, the staff's calculated offsite radiation doses to the thyroid at EAB and LPZ were 29 rem each using the pool water DF of 100 (23 feet water depth) and 10% radiciodine gap release. With a pool water DF of 71.6 (21 feet water depth) and the same radiciodine gap release, the resulting offsite thyroid would be 41 rem. The wnole-body doses due to the noble gases are not affected by the pool water depth.
The NRC staff finds that the calculated offsite doses (41 rem) at EAB and LP7 due to a fuel handling accident at the Hatch station are well within 10 CFR Part 100 dose reference values and meet the dose guidelines (75 rem) provided in SRP Section 15.7.4 The licensee also stated that changing the Unit 1 surveillance requirement for determining the SFP water level from daily to weekly will not significantly 1
reduce the margin of safety because the radiological consequences of a fuel 1
handling accident in the SFP wi',1 not exceed the acceptance limit for that event when the pool level is as inw as its low level alarm.
Based on its review of the licensee's submittal, the NRC staff agrees with the licensee's conclusions and finds that Proposed Change 1 will have no adverse impact on safety and will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
Therefore, it is acceptable, b.
Proposed Change 2 The licensee stated that the post-LOCA radiation monitors installed at Hatch linits 1 and 2 are considered a passive portion of radiation control because they do not actively handle or control radiation hazards but only provide alarm capability.
Hatch Unit 1 TSs currently require that these monitors be calibrated at least once every 6 months while identical monitors at Unit 2 are required to be calibrated once every 18 months.
Furthermore, the licensee stated that field data of Hatch Unit 1 monitors were reviewed over a 36-month period and the monitors were found not to drif t outside their acceptance range.
Based on its review of the licensee's submittal, the NRC sta'f agres with the licensee's conclusions and finds that Proposed Change 2 wil'i have no adverse impact on safety and will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
Therefore, it is acceptable.
c.
Proposed Change 3 The licensee stated that this-change would correct administrative errors in Unit 2 TS Tables 3.3.2-1 and 3.8.?.6-1.
A footnote was inadvertently moved from Item 4.9 of Table 3.3.2-1 to item 4.h and two items, f.16 and f.17, of Table 3.8.2.6-1 were inadvertently retained in Anendment No.109 issued March 18, 1991.
n
3-P
)
Based on its' review of the licensee's submittal, the NRC staff ag
- i with the i
licensee's conclusions and finds that Prepose/
...ge 3 will have no adverse impact on safety and will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
Therefore it is acceptable,
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official t
was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
f
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change requirements with respect.o installation or use f
of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has etermined that the amendments invclve no significant increase in the amounts,
.nd no significant change in the t3 es, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumuletive occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a i
proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (56 FR 29276). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eli iteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibilityPursut.c to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentai l
impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments, t
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commissica nac concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reason 5ble assurance that the health and safety v' the public will not ce crdangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2', such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common l
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Kahtan N. 1abbour, PDIl-3/DRPE
[
1 Principal Ccatributor:
Date: August 28, 1991 e
I i
9