ML19330C162
| ML19330C162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330C161 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008080023 | |
| Download: ML19330C162 (2) | |
Text
.
a8 UNITED STATES
[
, e g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 2C555
%k,,,+'
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 77 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-57 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO.-50-321 Introduction By telecopied letter dated July 2,1980, Gecrgia Power Company (licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License No. DPR-57 for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 1.
The request involved a temporary waiver of the restriction on operation of the reactor with an inoperable High Pressure Coolant Injection (HPCI) System.
Evaluation i
s The licensee's request for a temporary waiver of the requirement for operability of the HPCI System was requested to perfonn a diagnostic test and r. pair program for enhancing the reliability of the HPCI System. ihis program was requested by our Office of Inspection and Enforcement because of the experience at Hatch 1 and 2 of start failures and inadvert(lt isolations of this engineered safety system.
The current Technical Specifications for Hatch 1 authorize continued operation with an inoperable HPCI for 7 days to provide time for main-tenance and repair activities. This time limit is less than the 14 days which is the current licensing practice as set foi 3 in the " Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors"
'(NUREG-01,23). The specification is necessarily general in nature and does not cover contingencies such as the conduct of special tests for diagnosis of malfunctioning systems. Thus, even if the reactor were shut down, the current specifications would never permit restart since demonstration of. operability of the HPCI System could not be performed.
We have reviewed the licensee's request and determined that a change is acceptable and justified as discussed below. Further, in discussions with the licensee, it was agreed that the Hatch 1 Technical Specifications should incorporate our current licensing practices to avoid, as much as possible, the necessity for urgent changes.
8008080 0&3
The change does not. exceed the duration of 14 days for an inoperable.HPCI f
System beyond the current licensing practice. All other safety systems 8
are operational. These include the Automatic Depressurization System, Low Pressure Coolant Injection System, and Core Spray System. The Reactor Core Isolation Coolant System is also operational. Our Resident Inspector at the Hatch site has also stated that the HPCI can be manually initiated if necessary. Accordingly, we have detennined that the change does not o
exceed the limitations currently imposed on operating reactors, is within the envelope of analyzed failures,: and is therefore acceptable. During j
discussions with the licensee, we suggested that the Hatch 1 specificatiors also be revised to incorporate our standard licensing practices for the situation where HPCI surveillance cannot be performed due to low reactor steam pressure. These practices are set forth in NUREG-0123.
He agreed. Accordingly, the amendment supported by this evaluation is i
acceptable.
Environmental Considerations We have determined that this amendment does not autharize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment-.
Conclusion We have concluded that:- (1) because the amendment does not isolve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously_ considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the i'suance of this amendment will not
+
be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety.of the public, f
Dated: July 28,1980 i
. = ~,
-