ML20082V352
| ML20082V352 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082V348 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-52448, NUDOCS 8312200089 | |
| Download: ML20082V352 (3) | |
Text
__
pa ctam M
'o UNITED STATES
!~, _m [,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 7. ? '
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.% /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO 96 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-57 4
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-321
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 29, 1983 (Ref. 1) Georgia Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request for an amendment of the Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. DPR-57 for the Edwin I. Hatch-Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1.
These Technical Specification changes are to provide (1) maximum average planar linear heat nodal exposure greater than 30 Gwd/t; (generation rate (MAPLHGR) limits for2) MAPLH types P80RB284LA and P80RB283; and (3) maximum critical power ratio (MCPR) operating limits for the 8X8R and P8X8R fuel. The purpose of these revisions is to allow increased flexibility in the core design for the core reconstitution to replace damage,d fuel.
2.0 Evaluation Our evaluation of the proposed Technical Specification amendment is as follows:-
2.1 MAPLHGR LIMITS There are three issues involving the MAPLHGR changes:
The first adds new MAPLHGR curves (Figures 3.11-1, Sheets 4 and 5) for fuel assemblies previously used in Hatch-Unit 2.
Their use in Unit I was evaluated by the General Electric Company (GE) using standard approved analysis methods and found to be bounding. This change is therefore acceptable.
The second involves changes to pages 3.11-1 and 3.11-3 to adequately reference the new MAPLHGR curves. Since this change is administrative, it is acceptable.
The third extends the MAPLHGR limits of Figures 3.11-1, Sheets 1, 2 and 3, beyond 30 Gwd/t based upon analyses performed by GE following approved methodology and also previously approved by the NRC staff (Ref. 2). This change is there-fora acceptable.
8312200089 831206 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
2.2 FUEL RECONSTITUTION In response to a question from the NRC staff, the licensee provided (Ref. 3) information on the core reconstitution performed to allow Hatch Unit 1 to complete its current operating cycle. The licensee's response indicates that it believes fuel failures from crud induced localized corrosion (CILC) caused an increase in off-gas activity leading to the current outage. The licensee states that it will inform us of its findings if other failure mechanisms are found in ongoing tests.
The licensee further indicates it is in the process or sipping all fuel in the core. The lhensee intends not to reload any identified leaking fuel rod in the core, and to the extent feasible and consistent with the revised core design, will not reload fuel judged to be susceptible to CILC. We believe these measures will minimize the possibility of additional fuel failures during the remainder of the cycle, and thus will pose no threat to the health and safety of the public.
2.3 MCPR LIMITS CHANGES The current Hatch Unit 1 Technical Specifications require the operating limit MCPR of 1.29 for the 8X8R and P8X8R fuel as specified in Figures 3.11.4 and 3.11.5.
The licensee proposes to raise the operating limit minimum critical power ratio (0LMCPR) for the 8XSR and P8X8R fuel such that the OLMCPR. increases linearly from 1.29 to 1.35 with the increase of the normalized rod scram time,T,
from 0 to 1.0.
This proposed increase in OLMCPR is in the conservative direction, and the new MCPR limits are chosen to provide conservative values i
for general core design. Even though no analysis has been provided to support the new OLMCPR values, a comparison with the Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications l-has shown that the proposed OLMCPR values for Hatch Unit 1 are higher than those for the Hatch Unit 2 8X8R and P8X8R fuel.
In addition, the licensee has indicated that it will verify that these MCPR limits bound the results of all transient analyses during the licensing review of each new core design, and that it will submit a Technical Specification change if the results require it. Therefore, we have concluded that the proposed MCPR change is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, wd have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is-insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.5(d)(4),
that an environmental impact statement, or negative det.larat' ion and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, '.nat-.(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will i
. not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Letter from G. F. Head (Georgia Power Company) to J. F. Stolz (NRC),
"NRC Docket 50-321, Operating License DPR-57, Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Request for Changes to plant Hatch Unit 1 Technical Specifications," NED-83-483, September 29, 1983.
2.
Letter from J. F. Stolz (NRC) to J. T. Beckham (GPC) February 3,1982.
3.
Letter from L. T. Gucwa (GPU) to J. F. Stolz (NRC), " Hatch Unit 1 Core Reconstitution Outage," November 15, 1983.
Principal Reviewers:
M. Dunenfeld and Y. Hsii.
Dated: December 6, 1983 l
,