ML20034G587
| ML20034G587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034G586 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9303100170 | |
| Download: ML20034G587 (2) | |
Text
..
p nc
/
'o UNITED STATES
[' 3 m *,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-r WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ii f e R.%s R. $
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REL ATED TO AMENDMENT NO.184 TO FACIllTY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-321
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter ~_:ed December 21, 1992, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) proposed a revision to the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS).
The revision would delete two primary containment isolation valves (PCIVs)
Ell-F022 and Ell-F023, associated with the residual heat removal (RHR) head spray mode from Hatch Unit 1 TS Table 3.7-1, " Primary Containment isolation Valves Which Receive a Primary Containment Isolation Signal;" Table 4.2-1, " Check, Functional Test, and Calibration Minimum Frequency for Instrumentation Which Initiates Reactor Vessel and Primary Containment Isolation;" and 'able 3.7-4, " Primary Containment Testable isolation Valves."
In addition, Table 3.7-3, " Testable Penetrations with Testable Bellows," will be revised to identify Penetration X-17 as a spare. The testable bellows for Penetration X-17 will not be removed and surveillance testing of the bellows will continue.
2.0 EVALUATION The purpose of this change is to support the physical removal of the above valves.
The function of the head spray mode of RHR is to spray water in the reactor vessel head area, while in the process of reactor shutdown, to provide a rapid reactor head cooldown.
It is a low flow, low pressure system designed to supply water to the vessel steam dome, through the head spray nozzle.
Hatch Unit I was designed with this capability when it was sticipated that reactor vessel head conditions would be a critical path for beginning a refueling outage. However, operating experience has shown that the RHR head spray mode is unnecessary for cooldown of the vessel head, does not perform any safety-related functions, and is not addressed in the emergency operating procedures.
In addition, use of the head spray mode of RHR is not practical given the restrictive cooldown rates established in TS 3.6.
Additionally, removal of the RHR head spray piping spool piece delayed removal of the reactor head for refueling which resulted in unnecessary personnel exposure. Accordingly, the licensee deactivated the RHR head spray mode, and removed the spool piece (between the flanged connection on the reactor vessel head and the flanged connection just downstream of valve Ell-F019) in 1986 in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
9303100170 930301 PDR ADDCK 05000321 p
. i i
Although the RHR head spray mode of operation was deactivated and the spool piece removed. -the associated PCIVs, Ell-F022 and E11-F023, were not removed.
Accordingly, testing in accordance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, has continued j
on the PCIVs, resulting in unnecessary personnel exposure. The licensee i
currently plans to physically remove these valves during the upcoming Unit 1.-
spring 1993, refueling outage. Following removal of the PCIVs, Penetration i
X-17 will be capped, thus, preserving containment integrity.
Based on its review, the NRC staff finds that the proposed revision has no adverse impact on safety and does not pose an undue risk to public health and -
safety. Therefore, it is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be_ released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 6997 dated February 3,1993).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR SI.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities wilj be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Kahtan Jabbour Date: March 1,1993
.