ML19257B906
| ML19257B906 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1980 |
| From: | Kelly R GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0578, RTR-NUREG-578 NUDOCS 8001210214 | |
| Download: ML19257B906 (2) | |
Text
2 Georgia Power Company
\\
230 Peacntree Street Post Office Box 4545 Attanta, Georgia 30302
- Telephone 404 522 6060 A
a mir Georpia Power Vce President and General Manager O
Power Generation the southern erecinc system January 14, 1980 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER OF JANUARY 2, 1980 Gentlemen:
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by its January 2, 1980, letter directed Georgia Power Company to show cause why operation of Plant Hatch Unit 2 should be allowed after January 31, 1980, without the installation of certain wiring modifications associated with the primary containment isolation system (PCIS). Georgia Power Company's letter of December 28, 1979, addressed this point and requested an extension of the installation schedule to March 1, 1980, from January 31, 1980. Further discussion of that request is provided herein in answer to that show cause order.
A wiring modification is available for implementation on Unit 2 similar to that already made on Unit 1.
It is accomplished by a series of contacts taken off cf each primary containment isolation valve control switch in question, such that each switch must be in a non-opening position prior to reset of the PCIS logic.
Each of the valves can then be opened individually as required following trip logic reset. This fix requires the use of certain qualified switches and relays which were available and installed on Unit 1, but were in insufficient supply to implement the same change on Unit 2.
These parts were received at the site about the firsc of January 1980 and are available for installation. This fix, while a fully satisfactory solution in accordance with NUREG-0578 is, however, less than optimum.
It would require the operator to place or check each of the valves' switches in question, out of the opening position, prior to reset of the PCIS logic. A more optimum design calls for spring return selector switches to eliminate this cumbersome requirement on the operator.
Switches suitable for this application are scheduled for delivery in February and would be available for installation during a required outage scheduled to begin the'first of March 1980.
This outage is to be conducted as Fart of a previous commitment to the NRC made in conjunction with discussions on Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements. Associated with that outage is te us modification work related to the Mark I program which we do not feel at this time can be fully supported at an earlier shutdown in January.
AoYO 1774 310 pg
~
i s o u t z e #/
/3
.3 Geor[iaPower A Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 14, 1980 Page Two Best estimates of the installation time of the " Unit 1" fix without the spring return switches include approximately four days of shutdown in addition to several days of preparation prior to the actual shutdown.
The effort expended on this modification made during a January 31st shutdown would be lost when the optimum fix is installed during the March shutdown. For the twenty-nine days between February 1st and }brch 1st, it is proposed that a plastic cover be placed over the PCIS logic reset button with specific instructions to consult the appropriate procedure before resetting, thus preventing inadvertent valve reopening. This pro-tection augmented by increased operator awareness through specific
" standing" instructions provides what Georgia Power Company feels is more than adequate protection against the potential operator error of reset without the manual movement of the isolation valve controls out of the opening position and fully protects the public health and safety.
While we recognize that administrative controls alone as a compensatory measure were judged to be inadequate for the period of a year as discussed in the NRC letter of November 14, 1979, to the BWR Owners Group, we request that such measures as described above (i.e., plastic cover and increased operator awareness) be allowed for the twenty-nine day period in question and Plant Hatch Unit 2 be allowed to operate until March 1, 1980 at which time the optimum design solution to the concerns of NUREG-05)8 item 2.1.4 would be installed.
Your earliest review of this schedule proposal is requested.
If this proposal is not acceptable, please contact this office at your earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours, R. J. Kelly WEB /mb xc: Ruble A. Thomas George F. Trowbridge, Esquire R. F. Rogers, III 1774 311