ML20205G504
| ML20205G504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205G503 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9904070264 | |
| Download: ML20205G504 (3) | |
Text
'
nog f4 UNITED STATES 3g.
3 i)Zd E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 e.....j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 215 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 AND AMENDMENT NO.156 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC.. ET AL.
EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By [[letter::HL-5698, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,revising TS 2.1.1.2 by Deleting Footnote Which Specifies That SLMCPRs Are for Cycle 18 Only & Deleting TS 5.6.5.b.2|letter dated December 4,1998]], Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern 1
Nuclear, the licensee), et al., proposed license amendments to change the Technical
{
Specifications (TS) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. The proposed changes would make two changes to the TS. The first change would revise Unit 1 TS Section 2.1.1.2 by deleting the footnote that specifies that the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPR) are for Cycle 18 only. The second change would revise the TS for both units by deleting Section 5.6.5.b.1) and incorporating Section 5.6.5.b.1) into Section 5.6.5.b.
I 2.0 EVALUATION 4
By letter dated May 9,1997, the licensee proposed a license amendment to revise the SLMCPR to reflect calculations specific to Unit 1 Cycle 18. The staff issued Amendment No. 209 on October 8,1997, which revised the SLMCPR and added a footnote that stated that this SLMCPR applied only to Cycle 18.
In its [[letter::HL-5698, Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,revising TS 2.1.1.2 by Deleting Footnote Which Specifies That SLMCPRs Are for Cycle 18 Only & Deleting TS 5.6.5.b.2|letter dated December 4,1998]], the licensee described the methodology used to calculate the SLMCPR values for Cycle 19 operation. The Cycle 19 SLMCPR analysis was performed by General Electric Nuclear Energy (GENE) using Hatch Unit 1 plant-and cycle-specific fuel and co:e parameters, NRC approved methodologies including GESTAR ll (NEDE-24011-P-A-13, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5), NEDO-10958-A, January 1977, and the relevant !nformation provided in Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11, NEDE-24011, which was approved in a letter from Frank Akstulewicz, NRC, to Glen A. Watford, GE, dated March 11,1999. Amendment 25 to GESTA.R-il provides cycle-specific SLMCPRs that replace the former generic, bounding SLMCPR. The results show that the same SLMCPR values are applicable to both Cycle 19 and Cycle 18 operation. No change in SLMCPR values is required.
The staff has reviewed the following: (1) the justificatio 1 for the SLMCPR value of 1.10 for two recirculation loop operation and 1.12 for single loop operation for Cycle 19, (2) the relevant information provided in Amendment 25 to GESTAR-il, NEDE-24011), and (3) the relevant information provided in NEDC-32601 (which is under the staff review) which provides the basis for the rounding technique used for the SLMCPR calculation. Based on our review of the submittal and the relevant portion of the topical reports, the staff has concluded that the 9904070264 990401 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
PDR Cycle 19 SLMCPR analysis for Hatch Unit 1 using the plant-and cycle-specific calculation in conjunction witn the approved method is acceptable. The Cycle 19 SLMCPR will ensure that 99.9 percent of the fuel rods in the core will not experience boiling transition which satisfies the requirements of Generic Design Criterion 10 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 regaroing acceptable fuel design limits. Therefore, the staff has concluded that the justification for analyzing and determining the SLMCPR value of 1.10 for two loop and 1.12 for single loop for Hatch Unit 1 Cycle 19 is acceptable since approved methodologies were used.
The March 11,1999, Safety Evaluation (SE) related to Amendment 25 to NEDE-24011 P-A concludes that the methodology described in Amendment 25 is acceptable for determining cycle-specific values of the SLMCPR. These findings are applicable to Hatch. Based on the licensee's use of NRC-approved methodologies for determining the SLMPCPR for Cycle 19 and future cycles of Hatch Unit 1, the staff concludes that is acceptable to retain the same SLMCPR and dotate the footnote. The use of the approved methodology (GESTAR 11, as amended) will ensure ; hat values for cycle-specific parameters are determined, such that applicable safety levels are met. If analyses for future ' cycles determine that the TS value of the SLMCPR is not bounding, the TS will be revised p:ior to the startup of that cycle.
In order to remove cycle-specific power distribution limits from the TS and put them in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the licensee was required to include in the TS reference to NRC-approved methods that were used to develop these limits. Section 5.6.5.b.2) references an NRC SE that approved methods that were used to analyze Advanced Nuclear Fuels Lead Use Assemblies (ANF LUAs), because at the time that the COLR was approved for Hatch, both units had four of these ANF LUAs. Since Unit 1 and Unit 2 no longer contain these ANF LUAs, and the licensee does not plan to use these, the staff concludes that deletion of the reference and the SE Section 5.6.5.b.2 is acceptable. Since only one document remains in Section 5.6.5.b, the staff concludes that it is acceptable to delete "the following documents" and incorporate Section 5.6.5.b.1) into Section 5.6.5.b to accurately reflect the methodology in use at Hatch.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components Idcated 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 cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such Tinding (9 FR 4161 dated January 27,1999). The amendments also change recordkeeping or reporting requirements. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
p 6
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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 Contributnr: T. Huang Date: April 1, 1999 l
l l
l l