ML20127B282
| ML20127B282 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Hatch |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1984 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A737 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-794 NUDOCS 8403050304 | |
| Download: ML20127B282 (8) | |
Text
-
t s*
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA i
CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA DOCKETS NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING i
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5, issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and City of Dalton, Geo,rgia (the licensees),
for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
The licensees, in applications dated February 26, 1981, as sup?lemented by submfttals dated October 1, 1981, September 19, 1983, and October 3, 1983, i
i requested caendments that would provide Technical Specifications for both l
Hatch Units 1 and 2 that would 1) add limiting conditions for oparation (LCOs) l' and surveillance requirements for scram discharge volume (50V) vent and drain l
valves and 2) add LCOs and surveillance requirements for new diverse 50V l
l Y
p
o
.. highwater level scram instrumentation. The Comission made a proposed determination (48 FR 51876) that the amendments requested in the February 26, 1981 submittal, as supplemented by the submittals dated October 1,1981, September 19, 1983, and October 3, 1983, involve no significant hazards censideration.
Subsequent to the initial notice in the Federal Reaister, Georgia Power Company, by letters dated December 14 and 20,1983, modified its September 19, 1983, proposed closure time requirement for the SDV vent and drain valves. The Comission issued Amendments Nos. 97 to Facil,ity Operating License DPR-57 and 34 to Facility Operating License NPF-5 dated January 6,1984, based on the February 26, 1981, through December 20, 1983, amendment request letters. However, because of the late arrival of the December 14 and 20,1983 submittals, the Comission had not completed its review of the proposed valve closure tirge requirement and, therefore, did not include a closure time reouirement in these amendments.
In the Notice of Issuance (48 FR 3365) of these amendments, the Commission stated that the NRC staff would 1) prepare a separate proposed determination and notice for the December 14 and 20, 1983 submittals, and 2) provide a closure time requirement in a subsequent amendment following completion of its review of the licensees' proposal. This notice discusses this separate proposed determination.
The current Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications do not provide closure time requirements for these SDV vent and drain valves or the diverse
p.
SDV highwater level scram instrumentation. The provision of a closure time based on the December 14, 1983, and December 20, 1983, submittals adds a surveillance limit not currently required by the Technical Specifications.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Ccmmission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regula-tions, in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident pre-viously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reductjan in a margin of safety.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of these standards by providing certain examples (48 FR 14870).
An example of a change involving no significant hazards consideration is "a change that censtitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications:
for example, a more stringent surveillancerequirement"(Example (ii)).
Since the proposed changes add limitations not presently included in the Technical Specifications, the Commission's staff proposes to determine that the application does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
i +
. The Comission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
l Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Comission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, ATTN: Docketing and l
Service Branch.
By March 29, 1984, the licensees may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses 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 reouest for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Beard, designated by the Comission or by the Chaiman of the Atomic Safety and l
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.
l
As reouired by 10 CFR 92.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth witn particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The peti-tion should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should'be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the 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 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 the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petit.ioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to interesene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition with-out reouesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described ahove.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the peti-tion to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are 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 amendments 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.
e 6-Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject 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 the oppor-tunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will make a final determination ontheissueofnosignificanthazards3onsideration.
The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no a
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make them effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendtaents.
If the final determination is that the amendments involve a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendments.
Normally, the Comission will not issue the amendments until the expiration 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 facilities, the Consnission may issue the license amendments before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant
j
~
7-hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State coments received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for,a hearing after issuance..The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur veryinfrjauently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be 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 last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Comission 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 message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to G. F. Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensees.
4 J
9
' Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained 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 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)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this actibn see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public
~
Document Rocm, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 21st day of February,1984 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dohn'F. Stolz, Chief l Ocirating Reactors Branch No. 4 Y vision of Licensing O
- t_
L 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL DOCKET NO. 50-366 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMEN 0 MENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-5, issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensees), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
In accordance with the licensees' application for amendment dated April 3, 1984, the amendment would modify the Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications as follows:
1.
Add a figure to define the Average Planer Linear Heat Generation Rate limit (MAPLHGR) for fuel type P80RB284H.
The licensees informed us that this change is requested in connection with the core reloading of Hatch Unit 2 to allow for introduction of a new fuel type. This fuel type has not been previously used in Hatch Unit 2 but has been used in Hatch Unit 1.
4 e
b d
l_
o 7590-01 2.
Increase the operating limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (OLMCPR) for 8x8R and P8x8R fuel. This change is requested in conjunction with the core reloading of Hatch Unit 2.
The ifcensees have stated that the intent of this change is to allow for licensing the fourth Hatch Unit 2 reload under 10 CFR 50.59 when final design and licensing work are completed.
3.
Change the description of the control rod assemblies in Section 5.3.2 (Design Features) of the Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications to delete references to the specific materials and details of construction of the control blades. The licensees have stated that this change is intended to support the use in Hatch Unit 2 of an arbitrary number (up to 137) Type I General Electric Hybrid I Control Rod (HICR) assemblies containing some hafnium as absorber material in place of the boron carbide control rods presently in use.
The HICR form, fit and function are identical to that of, the blade it replaces. The HICR is designed to increase control roa assembly life and to eliminate cracking of absorber tubes containing boron carbide (B C). The essential differences between the HICR and the BWR Z-4 4
D-lattice control rod assemblies currently in use are:
a) improved 8 C absorber rod tube material to eliminate cracking 4
during the lifetime of the control rod assembly, and b) some B C absorber rods are replaced with solid hafnium absorber 4
rods to increase blade life.
4 Increase the number of fuel assemblies that can be loaded around a source range monitor (SRM) in order to assure that 3 counts per second (cos) can
7590-01 3-be achieved without the use of additional sources or dunking chambers.
The current Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications require that the fuel assemblies be loaded into their previous core position next to each of the four SRMs. The loading of the bundles around the SRMs before attaining the 3 cps is permissible.b,ecause these bundles were in subcritical configuration when they were removed and therefore will remain subcritical when placed back in the previous position.
This request is very similar to an earlier request for Hatch Unit 2 which was granted as Amendment No. 26 for loading two bundles next to the SRMs.
Because Hatch Unit 2 has been in an extended outage, more than two bundles may be required to establish the requisite 3 cps on the SRMs so that fuel loading may proceed.
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) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regula-tions in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility or a new or different kind of accident from any accident pre-viously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
1 I
t w
y e
w w
- +
1 7590-01,
r.
1 The licensees have evaluated the proposed changes against these three standards and have provided the following information concerning them:
Change 1 Fuel type P80RB284H is a standard General Electric design as described in the NRC approved fuel licensing document, GESTAR II (NEDE-24011-P-A-6). The calculated peak clad temperatures for this fuel type correspond to the criteria specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix K, and in a letter from J. F. Stolz (USNRC) to J. T. Beckham (GPC),
dated February 3,1982; therefore, MAPLHGRS may be defined for exposures greater than 30,000 Mwd /st.
The proposed MAPLHGR limits were calculated by General Electric using methods consistent with approved analyses of the loss of coolant accident and anticipated operational transients given in the Hatch 2 FSAR, and all applicable requirements stated therein are met by the proposed values. Application of the MAPLHGR limits will not result in any reduction of the margin of safety or cause any change in the consequences for postulated accidents and transients because all acceptance criteria as defined above are met. No design changes to the plant or procedural changes are involved with this part of the amendment.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of the previously considered events would remain unaffected.
Because no new failure modes would be introduced, the possibility of a new type of accident would not be created.
Change 2 Based on review of the anticipated fuel mix, and on the transient analysis input parameters for the fourth reload, compared to the results of transient analyses performed for previous reloads of both Hatch units, it is judged that the proposed limits will conservatively bound the OLMCPRs that result from licensing analyses of Hatch 2 reload 4 and subsecuent Hatch 2 core reloads.
Conformance with ~ the proposed MCPR operating limits shall be assured prior' to reactor startup by analyses of limiting operational transients, using the analytical methods given in the approved fuel licensing document, GESTAR II (NEDE-24011-P-A-6).
Application of these verified OLMCPRS will not cause any reduction of the margin of safety or produce any changes in the consequences of postulated accidents and transients because all acceptance criteria as defined above are met.
No design changes to the plant or procedural changes are involved with this part of the amen &nent.
Therefore, the probability of occurrence of O
t 7590-01 previously considered events would remain unaffected.
Because no new failure modes would be introduced, the possibility of a new type of accident would not be created.
Change 3 Safety design bases which must be met by control rods are enumerated in the Hatch 2 FSAR Chapter 4.
Analyses documented in the approved topical report, NEDE-22290-A, have shown that those design bases are met by the HICR blades; therefore, use of these blades will cause no reduction in the margin of safety.
For example, the HICR weight and rod worth are the same as those For the currently used control rod assembly. Therefore, the scram speed and scram reactivity are also the same.
It follows then that the LHGR, MCPR and MAPLHGR limits are not affected by the HICR.
Because the control rod worth is the same, the capability of the reactor to achieve the Design Basis cold shutdown reactivity margin is not affected.
In addition, existing methodology for analysis of the control rod withdrawal error transient and the control rod drop accident remains valid with HICR assemblies installed.
It follows then, that the probability of or consequences of all accidents and transients previously evaluated in the FSAR will not be affected by use of the HICRs.
i The possibility of occurrence of an accident different than any evaluated in the FSAR is not created by use of the HICR assemblies because there is no functional change in the control rods.
As shown above, use of the HICR assemblies in Hatch 2 does not increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident, nor does it significantly reduce any safety margin.
The result of this design change is clearly within all acceptance criteria given in the Hatch 2. FSAR as noted above.
Change 4 GE's spent fuel pool studies, GESSAR - NED010741, Chapters 4 and 9, show that:
- 1) sixteen or more fuel assemblies (i.e., four or more control cells) must be loaded together before criticality is possible; and 2) for an uncontrolled 2x2 array of maximum reactivity bundles, K will always be less than.95.
In spiral loading i
sequences in the Hatch core, an array containing four or more control cells will be at most two control cells (i.e., about two feet) away from an SRM detector. The sensitivity loss in such a l
7590-01,
case is at most one decade of sensitivity (i.e., about one fifth of the SRMs logarithmic scale). This means that criticality cannot be reached during a spiral reload without an operable SRM detecting it. A spiral sequence is any sequence in which the central control cell is last unloaded and first reloaded, all fueled locations are contiguous, and no imbedded cavities or major peripheral concavities are permitted.
The possibility of occurrence of an accident different than any evaluated in the FSAR is.not created because there is no design change to any plant systems. This change does not significantly increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident because the referenced studies demonstrate inadvertent criticality with four bundles is not possible and further, the same subcritical assemblies and arrangement that was discharged is returned to the same core location.
Finally, the safety margin is not significantly reduced because the bundles remain significantly subcritical.
The licensees' evaluation, as discussed above, of each of these four changes has shown that the changes are in conformance with the three standards for concluding that they involve no significant hazards consideration.
Therefore, based on its review of the above infonnation, the Commission proposes to determine that the applicatidh involves no
~
j significant hazards consideration.
The Comission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any coments received within 30' days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
The Comission I
will not normally make a final detennination unless it receives a request for j
a hearing.
l Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Comission,~ ll.S.
l Nuclear Regulatory Cceission, Washington, D. C.
20555, ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch.
l l
.,...-,,p
, -, - - +
n,
4
\\
7590-01 4
7-By June 14, 1984, 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 i
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 Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the I
Commission 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 how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The peti-tion should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted
~
with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the 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 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
)
the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave
,.-~._...x
..n,.. _,
_,.,c.,
n
o 7590-01 f to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition with-out requesting leavt. of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding,'a petitioner shall file a supplement to the peti-tion to intervene which mun include a list of the contentions which are 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 t
one contention will not be pemitted to participate as a party.
Those pemitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intenvene, and have the oppor-tunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the oppor-tunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Comission will make a final determination on the issueNf no significant hazards consideration. The final detemination will serve'to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final detemination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Comission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the' amendment.
7590-01 9
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 Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration 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 Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this. action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for. leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the.
last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner 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 followino message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number;
7590-01
. date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington,
,D.C.
20555, and to G. F. Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,
' 1800 M. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensees.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained 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 a
granting of a late petition and/or request. That determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.71d(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this actiort, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Occument Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of May 1984 i
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
Au $ lch..
56hn/F.Stolz, Chief Opesting Reactors Branch #4 OfVision of Licensing f