ML20149J882
| ML20149J882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/16/1988 |
| From: | Crocker L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J880 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-65997, NUDOCS 8802230266 | |
| Download: ML20149J882 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ ______
l
,.fpa nty'o, UNITED STATES g
3 g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.t WASHINGTON, D C. 20655 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 15270 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE OPR-57 GECRGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHURPt POWER CORFORATION K'NICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTFORITY OF GEORGIA CITT OF DAllUh, GEURGIA ECWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 00CKET NO. 50-321 INTRONCTION By letter dated July 13,1987, (Reference 1), Georgia Power Company (the licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit 1.
The requested change would modify the definition of Surveillance Frequency in Section 1.!! of the TS to provide for an operating cycle length of 18 months instead of the 15 months specified in the existing TS.
EVALUATION 3ection 1.!! of the Hatch Unit 1 TS states in part, "The cperating cycle interval as pertaining to instrument and electrical surveillance shall never exceed 15 months." The licensee proposes to change this wording to state, "The operating cycle interval is defined as 18 months." Hatch Unit I has "custom" TS, that were issued at a time (1974) when the nonnal fuel cycles were on the order of 12 months.
Since that time, improvements in fuel design have allowed longer operating cycles between refueling outages. Hatch Unit 1 is now operating in cyc e 11, which is expected to last on the order of 18 months. The existing TS would require the licensee to shut down the reactor after 16 renths of operation to perforn required surveillances, even though the original intent was to perfom the surveil-lances at the end of the operating cycle.
i.ater plants, including Hatch Unit 2, have TS based upon the Standard Technical Specifications which centain a Surveillance Frequency Notations" table defining a refueling cycle as being equal to 18 months.
The tems operating cycle and refueling cycle have the same ireaning and are used interchangeably.
The licensee thus is in the position where the two Hatch units have different definitions of operating cycle (refueling cycle) length, even though the two units are essentially identical.
Concounding the problem, the Hatch Unit 1 TS are internally inconsistent.
In conjunction with a license change regarding the radiological environ-rental technical specifications, Amendment No. 110 added a Table 1.1, 8802230266 880216 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
2 "Frequency Notations", to the Hatch Unit 1 TS.
This table defines a refueling cycle as 18 months, but a corresponding change to Section 1.11 to redefine the operating cycle as being ecual to 18 months was not made.
The proposed change would correct this inconsistency.
Actual plant trip setpoints for instruments and electrical equipment cre set conservative to the T5 allowable values, such that the allowable
)
values are not compromised during an operating cycle by instrument drift.
Extending the allowable tire between refuelings from 15 months to 16 months l
would require ar adjustment to the actual trip setpoints, but would not affect the TS allowable values.
Thus, the design functions of the elec-trical and instrument systems are unaffected and the change would have no adverse effect on the safety analyses for the plant.
The licensee already is experienced in adjusting setpoints to cor'pensate for instrument drif t over an 18-month refueling cycle for Unit 2.
Cemparable adjustments for the Unit 1 instruments should pose no problems.
We conclude that the change requested by the licensee will resolve the internal inconsistency in the Hatch Unit 1 TS and will result in both Hatch Units being on an 18-month operating cycle.
Both of these are desirable. Since no changes are made to the allowable trip setpoints, the charge would have no adverse effect on plant safety.
We, therefore, conclude that the proposed change is acceptable.
MIRONMENTALCONSIDERATICh5 This amendrent changes surveillance requirements.
The staff has detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the arounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in inoividual or cunu-lative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comissien has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendeent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public corrent on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFP 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessnent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CChCLUSION The Comission made a proposed detemination that the arencrent involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Peoister on January 13,1988 (53 FR 827 ), and consulted with the state of Gecrgf a.
No public corrents were received, and the state of Georgia did not have any conirents.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurarce that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in ccepliance with the Corrission's regulations.
i I
and the issuance of the arencrent will ret be ininical to the cortnon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l
i REFERENCE 1.
Letter f rom J. P. O'Reilly, GFC, to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, dated July 13, 1987.
i Principal Contributor: Lawrence P. Crocker, PDI!-3/DRP!/!!
Dated:
February 16, 1988 i
l
[
]
1 J
l 4
f I
i I
'l l
l l
i 1
1 1
I i
l i
l
\\
i 1
\\
l l
l I
i I
1
Mr. James P. O'Reilly Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Georgia Power Company Units Nos. 1 and 2 cc:
G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Shaw. Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street. N. W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 Mr. L. T. Gucwa Engineering Department Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Nuclear Safety and Compliance Manager Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Mr. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services. Inc.
P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham. Alabar.a 35202 Resident inspe-tor U.S. Nuclear k.'quietory Comission Route 1. Box 725 Baxley, Georgia 31513 U.gional Administrator, Region !!
Re S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta Street. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georiga 30323 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street. S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Comissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street. N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairman Appling County Comissioners County Courthouse Baxley. Georgia 31513