ML20024A645
| ML20024A645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/15/1983 |
| From: | Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024A646 | List: |
| References | |
| NED-83-334, TAC-42603, TAC-42604, TAC-51984, TAC-51985, TAC-53476, TAC-53477, TAC-59543, TAC-59544, NUDOCS 8306220002 | |
| Download: ML20024A645 (5) | |
Text
.__
Georg;a Power Company 333 Pedmont Avenue Atlanta, Georg;a 30308 Telephone 404 526-7020 MaarN Address.
Post Of5ce Box 4545 Atlanta, Georg.a 30302 Georgia Power the southem elecinc sys:em J. T. Be*kham, Jr.
Vice President and Genera! Manager Nuclear Generanon NED-83-334 June 15, 1983 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cm mission Washirgton, D. C.
20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PIANP UNITS 1, 2 PUIEE AND VERP VALVE OPERABILITY Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c) (1), Georgia Power Conpany (GPC) hereby proposes an amendment'to the Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the Operating Licenses) as described in attachments 1 to 4 of this letter.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, J.
L.
Ledbetter of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources will be sent a copy of attachments 1 thru 4.
This application would amend the Unit 2 operational restrictions on'the purge and vent containment isolation valves and would alter the connitment made for the Unit 1 valves.
l Unit 2 was licensed with a restriction inposed on the amount of time l
that the 18" purge and vent isolation valves could be open.
In subsequent l
discussions with the staff it was determined that if: 1) a site specific i
dose analysis was subnitted; 2) measures were taken to protect downstream j
structures; and 3) valve operability was demonstrated; then the restriction l
could be lifted. The dose analysis and the valve operability data, with'the exception of the seismic test results sunnary, were subnitted in our letter of May 31, 1983.
We details of the design modificaticns are enclosed as attachnent 5.
The summary of the Wyle Labs test data is included as attachment 6.
Based on the information _ provided in the attachments, we request the removal of the restrictions on time of operation as proposed by
~
attachnents 3 and 4.
%e Plant Review Board has reviewed the proposed changes and determined that they do not consticute an unreviewed safety question or a significant hazard as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
Due to modifications that are to be made to the plant, the probability and consequences of the accident will actually be decreased.
The purpose of this ' change is to specify operability requirements without limiting the 18 inch valves to a 1% time limitation.
Aool
//4o (AJ[)CM #CK 8306220002 830615 J
L PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
PDR k &s CO
/
a a
a LGeorgia'Powerd Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.
20555 June 15, 1983 Page Two-
%e' action statement of this proposed specification essentially restates the current limitations, thus it has no detrimental effect on plant or equignent operation.
%e surveillance requirements likewise have no detrimental.
effect 'on plant or equipment operation because they. inpose no new operational constraints.
Given that this proposed change 'can not and will
_ not be inplemented until completion of the associated design modification discussed in the attachment, the possibility-for the existing scenario which i
could cause damage to Standby Gas Treatment System : (SGTS) will have been eliminated.
The proposed Technical Specification change, in that light,
.does not create the possibility of new accidents or malfunctions.
%e determination of amendment class is add'ressed in attachment 2.
%e proposed change has been determined to be Amendment Class III for one unit and Class I for the other. % e appropriate payment is enclosed.
In order to resolve issue (D) of your July 7,1982 letter, GPC plans to
. install redundant, safety-grade fast acting, excess flow isolation danpers i
.which will automatically isolate-the cannon 18" vent line from the torus and drywell before it ties into the SGis filter train suction.
To assure that post-IOCA venting capabilities are maintained with the worst single failure, a 2-inch bypass -line will be installed around the isolation danpers.
We propose that this plant modification be conpleted during the first outage of sufficient duration on both units after NRC approval of the modification, the coupletion of the engineering design, and the receipt of materials on
~
site. As.previously mentioned, details of'the design are in attachment 5.
[
To ensure operability of the 18" purge and vent valves under combined fluid dynamic and seismic loading conditions, Wyle Laboratories was contracted to test a valve-assembly.
We test program consisted of:
mounting a valve and actuator on a triaxial' shaker table, applying a resistance equivalent to the applied torque created when closing the valve
.against 62 psid, inputting triaxial accelerations equal to the plant SSE, and stroking the valve twice while subjected to the ccabined loads. Further
= details are available -in ' attachment 6.
While there is nothing proprietary in this letter, we do consider the Wyle test report to be proprietary.
In attachment.1 to our May 31 subnittal, we connitted to rotation of all purge and vent isolations valves except 2T48-F318 to the i @ lane-orientation.
Due to further engineering discussion we have determined that rotation 1is only necessary on the drywell isolation valves.
%erefore, as attachment 7 to this letter we have included revision 1 to the Purge and Vent System Operability Report. We only change is-the revision of the rotation connittment and ' supporting documentation.
All previous copies of this report should been discarded.
700775
- 2..
- t..
_...._-,_..._.._,,_..~.____..._,__._._,__-,,,....,_..m,___-.,_
Georgia Power A Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D. C.
20555 June 15, 1983 Page 'Ihree If you have any further questions, please contact this office.
J. T. Beckham, Jr. states that he is Vice President of Georgia Power Conpany and -is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Conpany, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.
GE0fGIA POWER COMPANY By J.T.Beckham,Jrg S
to nd subscribed fore me this 15th d of June, 1983.
Notary Public, Georgia, State at Large bj f. My Commission Expires Sept. 20.19R1
/
Notary Public RTB/mb Enclosures P xc:
H. C. Nix, Jr.
Senior Resident Inspector J. P. O'Reilly, (NRC-Region II) 7
.~
I L
i' ATTAC19ENT 1 NIC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 l
EDWIN I. HA'IDI NUCLEAR PIMP UNITS 1, 2 i
l PROPOSAL POR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES PUIGE VALVE OPERATION i
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CPR 50.90 as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), Georgia Power Conpany.(GPC) hereby proposes an amendment to the
- Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear -Plant Units 1 and 2 Tednical Specifications i
l(Appendix A to the Operating Licenses) as described in attachments 1 to 4 of this. letter.
Pursuant. to 10 CFR 50.91, J.
L.
Ledbetter of _ he Georgia t
- Department of Natural Resources will be sent a copy of attachnents l thru F
4.
%is application _ would amend the Unit 2 operational restrictions on the -
purge and vent containment isolation valves and would alter the conunitment made for the Unit 1 valves.
l l
Unit 2 was licensed with.a restriction inposed on the amount of time that the-18" purge and. vent isolation valves could be open.. In subsequent
' discussions with the stKff :it was determined that if: 1) a site specific dose analysis was sobmitted; 2) measures were taken to' protect downstream structures; and ' 3) valve operability was demonstrated; then the restriction could be lifted. %e dose analysis and the valve operability data, with the exception of the seismic test' results summary, were subnitted in our letter
!~
of May 31,1983.
he details of the' design. modifications are enclosed as l
. attachment 5.
The sunmary of the Wyle Labs test data is included as-attachnent. 6.
Based on the information provided in the attachments, we request the removal of' the restrictions on time of operation as proposed by L
attachments E 3 ' and 4. : he attachments also describe-the proposed control over the use of the '18" valves which would supplant our conmitment, for Unit 1, as stated in our letter of October 1,1982. %ese proposed changes would l
har-effective upon the installation of the design modifications described in attachnent 5.
.he wording of the proposed change to.the' Technical I
. Specification,is derived from BWR. Standard. Technical' Specifications, tmodified to fit the application.
. %e Plant Review Board has reviewed the proposed changes and determined
)
- that-they do-not" constitute an unreviewed safety question or a significant hazard as defined ~ in 10 CFR 50.92. Due to modifications that are to be made to the plant, the probability and consequences of the accident will actually be decreased.
The purpose of this change is to specify operability requirements without limiting the 18 inch valves. to a 1% time limitation.
j We action statement of this proposed specification essentially restates the current limitations, thus it has no detrimental effect on plant or equipment operation.
%e surveillance ~ requirements likewise have no detrimental i
effect' on plant.or~ equipment operation because they inpose no new operational constraints.
Given that this proposed change can not and will' not-be implemented until coupletion of the associated design modification l
discussed'in the attachment, 'the po'ssibility for the existing scenario which could cause damage to Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS) will have been eliminated.-
%e proposed Technical Specification change, in that light, does not create the possibility of new accidents or malfunctions.
The determination of amendment class is attachment 2.
~
i
.+
.. -....~
.-...,,__.,.-,_,.,,,_.._s,_..,,.....,,,,.--
,,_.,__,__..-_,m_,_
ATTACIDENT 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HA'IG NUCLEAR PIANP UNITS 1, 2 PROPOSAL FOR TEGNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES PURGE VALVE OPERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12 (c), Georgia Power Conpany has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating licenses DPR-57 and NPF-5 and has determined that:
a.
'Ihe proposed amendment does not require the evaluation of a new Safety Analysis Report or rewrite of the facility license; b.
'Ihe proposed amendment does not contain several emplex issues, does not involve ACRS review, and does not require an environmental inpact statement; c.
'Ihe proposed amendment does not involve a complex issue or more than one envirorunental or safety issue; d)
'Ihe proposed amendment does involve a single safety issue, namely, changes to the operating limitations of the 18 inch purge and vent valves.
e..
The proposed amendment is therefore a Class III amendment for one unit and a Class' I for the other.
l l
l-1 l
.. _.