ML19241C134
| ML19241C134 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19241C133 | List: |
| References | |
| SER-790703, NUDOCS 7907270328 | |
| Download: ML19241C134 (2) | |
Text
,,sa " t c.
N>
UNIT E D STATES
['e
- t. ' '.
NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION 5,z(x,_m{)-)-
j W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 QN@
j
.e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTIhG AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPL ELELIRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECIRIC ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
_CIi_i 0F DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN _
HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET tJ0. 50-366 Introduction letter dated May 22, 1979, Georgia Power Company (the licensee) t ',
proposed changes to the Technical Spec C. cations appended to Operating License No. NPF-5 for the Ed.ein I. Hatcn Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2.
The proposed changes would revise certain action statenents applicable to the Feactor Protection System (RPS) and Isolation Actuation Instrumentation; ar.d revise Bases for Applicability to insure proper' actions by the liccnsee in the event of operation with inoperable instrumentation channels.
The application was subnitted in direct response to the Ec irsion's request.
hac k c rnund A recent review of the staff's, " Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors" discl> sed that certain action statements required revision to 'rovide for proper action by licensees.
For e>enple, the specified actior, to be taken when the ninimum number or operable RPS Intermediate ra..'e monitor (IRM) channels is not satisfied, provided two options:
(1) place the inoperable channel in the tripped conditier, within one hour or (2) be in at least HOT SHUTDOWN within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
It was not the intent of the staff to penait selection ni option (2) for inoperable IRM channels since selection of this option would permit continued operation for up to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> with one or both channels in a non-safe (untrinned) condition.
A similar deficiency was identified for cther RPS instrumentation and for Engineered Safety feature (ESF) isolation actuation instrunentation.
Further, the staff 4b$
2 7007270));2_@#
identified the need to revise the Bases for Applicability to guide licensees in the execution of required actions.
As a result of the staff's review, the Standard Technical Specifications were revised to rectify these deficiencies and the licensees of each operating reactor whose Technical Specifications contained these deficiencies were requested to propose changes.
The staff's request to Georgia Power Company vias transmitted by letter f4RC (Ippolito) to GPC (Whitmer) dated February 1, 1979. Attached to that letter were appropriate marked-up pages of the Hatch Unit tio. 2 Technical Specifications which indicated the staff's recommended changes.
Evaluation The licensee's application is totall, responsive to the staff's request.
Each proposed change is more restrictive than that currently in effect.
During our review of the licensee's application we identified other revisions, editorial in nature, which would provide clarity for executing required actions.
These were discussed with the licensee and he agreed.
In viev cf the above we conclude that the application as amended by the staff is acceptable based on the finding that all substantive changes are more restrictive than currently appreved.
Environmental Consideration f
We have detemined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts ror an increase in power level and will not result in any significant er.viror 1 tal iroact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that.he amendment involves an action which is insigniiita',t fror, the standpoiat of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.S(d)(4), that ar environmental impact statement, negative declaration, ar environmental inpact appraisal need not be prepared ir connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) brouse the arendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a sioniticant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a
~
sienificant hazards consideratinn, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the pJbliC Will not be endangered by operation in the pronesed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Cated: July 3,1979 O
f