ML20211P422
| ML20211P422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211P411 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9710200190 | |
| Download: ML20211P422 (2) | |
Text
pu..m A
UNITED STATES p
NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION n
D wAsNINGToN. D.c. SeteHect
- T j
RAFETY EVALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT No. 209 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR 57 ROUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC. ET AL EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 1 l
DOCKET NO. 50 321 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 9,1997, as supplemented September 19,1997, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern Nuclear), et al. (the licensee) proposed a license amendment to change the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. The *,stoposed changes would revise the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limits cased on the cycle specific analysis of the mixed core of GE98/GE12/GE13 fuel for Cycle 18. The September 19,1997, supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.-
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee requested a change to the Hatch Unit 1 TS in accordance with 10 CFR 50.90 for the Cycle 18 operation. The proposed revision of the TS is described below.
The Safety Limit MCPR (SLMCPR) in TS 2.1.1.2 would be raised from 1.07 to 1.10 for
' two recirculation loop operation and from 1.08 to 1.12 for single recirculation loop operation for Cycle 18 when the reactor steam dome pressure 1:1785 psig and core flow is 110% rated core flow.
The staff has reviewed the above proposed changes to TS 2.1.1.2, and noted that these changes are based on the analyses performed using Hatch Unit 1 cycle specific inputs and approved methodologies including GESTAR ll (NEDE 24011 P A 13, Sections 1.1.5 and 1.2.5 and its reference NEDO 10958 A, January 1977), and the relevant information provided in the prnposed Amendment 25 to GESTAR 11, NEDE 24011 (which is under staff review). The core MCPR distribution and bundle R factor distributions are also evaluated for the nonequilibrium Cycle 18 core compared wi h that of the generic GE13 squilibrium core to ensure that 99.9 percent of fuel rods in the core will not experience the boiling
- transition, The results of the plant specific analysis indicate that for Hatch Unit 1 Cycle 18, the core has a much flatter radial power distribution than was used to perform the GE13 generic safety limit (SL) MCPR evaluation.
c) @ N 9710200190 971008
~
PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
2 On the basis of the review discussed above, the staff concludes that the proposed 4
changes to the TS are acceptable for Hatch Unit 1 Cycle 18 applicatlor) since the changes are analyzed based on the NRC approved methodologies and conservative cycle specific parameters for SLMCPR analysis are used that demonstrate that 99.9 percent of fuel rods in the core will not experience boiling transition.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had nu comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERAT.lD.N The amendment changes a requireme.it 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 amendment involves 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 amendment involves no significant barards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (62 FR 40857 dated July 30,1997). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set torth 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 connection with the issuance of the amendment.
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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
I Principal Contributor: T. Huang Date: October 8,1997 4
1 J
l
_. _ _. _ _ ~. _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _..
~ -
S y..w
.-.wm y
7y
.r_..
r g
e.
m vv