ML20137W967
| ML20137W967 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137W956 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9704210106 | |
| Download: ML20137W967 (3) | |
Text
l 1
e
.mu UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 0001
\\..../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION BEL 81ED TO AMENDMENT NOS. 148 AND 149 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-5 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC.. ET AL.
j EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By-letter dated December 3,1996, as supplemented by the letters dated January 27 and April 4,1997, Georgia Power Company, and Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al. (the licensee) proposed changes to the current Technical Specifications (TS) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP),
Unit 2 for Cycle 13 (H2Cl3) and Cycle 14 (H2C14). The proposed changes include the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits based on the cycle-specific analysis of H2C13 of a non-equilibrium core of all General Electric 9 (GE9) fuel with varying enrichments and H2C14 of a non-equilibrium mixed core of GE13/GE9 fuel. The January 27 and April 4, 1997, letters provided additional information that did not change the scope of the December 3,199", application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
?.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested changes to the HNP Unit 2 Technical Specifications for Cycle 13 and Cycle 14 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90. The proposed revisions of Technical Specification 2.1.1.2 are described below.
The safety limit MCPR (SLMCPR) in TS 2.1.1.2 is proposed for H2C13 to change from 1.06 to 1.08 for operation with two recir alation loops and from 1.07 to 1.09 for single loop o)eration (SLO), and for NCl4 to change fro..) 1.06 to 1.12 for operation hiti two recirculation loops and from 1.07 to 1.14 for SLO when the reactor steam dome pressure > 785 psig and core flow > 10% rated core flow based on the cycle-specific analysis performed by GE for both H2Cl3 and H2C14 operation. The cycle-specific parameters were used including the actual core loading, the most limiting permissible control blade patterns, actual bundle parameters, and the full-cycle exposure range.
The staff has reviewed the proposed TS changes, which are based on the analyses performed using HNP Unit 2 cycle-specific inputs and approved methodologies including GESTAR 11 (NEDE-24011-P-A-II, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5) and NEDO-10985-A, January 1977, for both single and dual loop operation. Because the R-factor methodology referenced in NEDE-240ll-P-A-11 is not applicable to the part-length GE13 fuel, an improved R-factor methodology described in NEDC-32505P, "R-Factor Calculation Method for Gell, 9704210106 970417 PDR ADOCK 05000366 P
[
o l
2-i.
GE12 and GE13 Fuel," November 1995 was used. The improved R-factor i
calculation method uses the same NRC-approved equation stated in GESTAR (NEDE-240ll-P-A) with the correction factors to account for the peaking factor ef%c due to the part-length-rod design. The staff has reviewed the R-l 1
fau.or calculation method for the GE13 and the relevant information provided I
in the proposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR II, NEDE-24011 (which is under staff review) and the supplemental information dated January 27, 1997, in response to the staff request for additional information during a telephone conference on January 10, 1997. The staff has found that the methodologies discussed above apply to the Hatch design and the justification for analyzing and i
determining'the SLMCPR of 1.08 and 1.09.(SLO) for the H2Cl3 and of 1.12 and for the H2014 operation are acceptable since (1) H2013 core has a 1.14 (SLO) factor distribution, a higher batch fraction, and a higher 4
flatter R-l enrichment than that of the generic GE9 core; and (2) H2C14 mixed core of GE13/GE9 has a flatter R-factor distribution and a higher enrichment than that l
of the generic GE13 core.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that the changes to the TS are acceptable for the H2C13 and H2Cl4 applications since the changes are analyzed based on the NRC-approved method, and the new values will ensure that greater than 99 percent of the fuel rods will avoid transition boiling, thus, preserving fuel cladding integrity.
1 J
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
j In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official has no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumuhtive occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously i: sued a proposed finding that the j
amendments involve no significant hazards ensideration, and there has been no public cosmient on such finding (62 FR 4349 oated January 29,1997).
Accordingly, 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 environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in i
connection with the issuance of the amendments.
i sw
a
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Cozaission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered 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 defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
T. Huang Date:
April 17, 1997 i-i 4
- --- -