ML19270G466
| ML19270G466 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1979 |
| From: | Whitmer C GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-11660, NUDOCS 7906080295 | |
| Download: ML19270G466 (2) | |
Text
,
s\\
June 4, 1979 (ban y R) g Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKET 50-321 OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 EDWIN I. IIATCH NUCLEAR TLANT UNIT 1 END-OF-CYCLE RECIRCULATION PUMP TRIP Gentlemen:
By our letter of Fby ll,1979, Georgia Power Company proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the Operating License) to incor-porate the features associated with the end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip which is being installed during the current refu211ng outage.
We have been asked by your staff to provide further information regardiag the design logic and equipment qualification associated with this plant modification. Specifically, we have been asked to compare the Plant IIatch Unit 1 design with the NRC approved Browns Ferry design.
It is our understanding based on discussions with General Electric Com-pany and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) personnel that the logic design for Plant flatch Unit 1 is the same as that approved for Browns Ferry; that is, the GE generic redundant two out of two logic.
Our discussions with General Electric Company have further identified the one area of difference between the Plant Hatch Unit 1 design and the previously approved design for Plant Ha tch Unit 2 as be, a: the trip logic associated with turbine stop valve closure.
The NRC approved Plant Hatch Unit 2 design utilizes one out of two taken twice logic for turbine stop valves whereas the Unit 1 design utilizes two out of two logic. The turbine control valve logic for both units is two out of two.
With regard to the types of equipment used by various utilities in implementation of the end-of-cycle recirculation pump trip design modifica-tion, General Electric Company has stated that their objective has been to match the equipment to the plant in each case.
This means that it would be unlikely that the equipment installed by TVA was identical to that being installed by Georgia Power Company. Therefore, we do not believe it is meaningful to compare the equipment installed by TVA at Browns Ferry with the equipment to be installed at Plant Hatch Unit 1.
We believe a more meaningful comparison can be drawn with the previously approved Plant Hatch Unit 2 0
'7 7EE Jl LdJ a
7 9 06 08 0 27 F'
Georgia Power.d Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 4, 1979 Page Two design. The equipment to be installed on Plant llatch Unit 1 is identical to that which is installed on Plant flatch Unit 2.
It is our view that the equipment is qualified, based on the previous NRC approval of the Plant liatch Unit 2 design, for the specific use intended, and thi.t a comparison with Browns Ferry is therefore unnecessary.
Yours very truly.
4
/
d /[
s )[,
( Yrx3/
y'~
/t.CYr 4
Chas. F. Whitmer RDB/mb Attachment xc:
Mr. Ruble A. Thomas George F. Tr ~-bridge, Esquire 9~'3l 7C' L: >
- t. J D
,