ML20052D898
| ML20052D898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1982 |
| From: | Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052D899 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-08298, TAC-08310, TAC-48362, TAC-48363, TAC-8298, TAC-8310, NUDOCS 8205070290 | |
| Download: ML20052D898 (3) | |
Text
n-a ro, c.., w,-
m v.
> om e.m o
- , ua
>gi nt-41l,;*; N }
.lY April 30, 1982 Georgia Power J. T. e on m. ar.
""*""W'"
.. s
- , -. c.u.,,,
N, w 6.
c'y Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
//
4 U. S. Nuclear RegulatoIy Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 REC 8tVED 3
g E
M82> b NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5
( " "esamf E Y 4
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1, 2 Tat SNUBBER TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS g
N Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), Georgia Power Company (GPC) hereby proposes an amendment to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the Operating License) for each Hatch unit.
The proposed amendment for each unit will incorporate revised specifications for snubber inservice surveillance requirements.
Enclosed are the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications to implement Invised snubber inservice surveillance as requested by D.
G.
Eisenhut's letter dated November 20, 1980.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications supersede those submitted previously by our letter dated April 14, 1981.
Shortly after our April submittal, the NRC Hatch Project Manager was contacted and requested to defer review of the proposed changes pending necessary revisions.
Revision of our submittal was necessary due to the inadvertent deletion of a statement concerning inaccessible snubber inspection frequency and the need to pInvide the Unit 1 safety-related mechanical snubber listing.
An accurate safety-related mechanical snubber listing for Unit 1
was unavailable for our April submittal since changes to the listing would be required resulting from NRC I&E Bulletin 79-14 walkdowns and International Nuclear Safeguard mechanical snubber replacement during the maintenance / refueling outage which was in progress at the time.
The proposed changes to the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications provide' for total revision of the existing snubber inservice surveillance requirements.
Addition of new requirements for visual inspection acceptance criteria, for engineering evaluation of piping due to failed snubbers, and for service life monitoring, as well as an increase in functional test sample size, are just a few of the items addressed in '.he proposed Technical Specification changes.
ht I
!$bSbo!fo$$00001 P
Georgial ower d Director of f4uclear Reactor Regulation U. S. t4uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 April 30, 1982 Page Two Please note that the proposed changes to the Unit 1
Technical Specifications have been written in Standard Technical Specifications format.
As a result of the format change and total revision of the snubber surveillance Technical Specifications, all pages pertaining to or referencing snubbers /(shock suppressors) modified in Amendments 37, 43, and 51 will be superseded.
The Plant Review Board and Safety Review Board have reviewed the proposed changes to the Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications and have concluded that no changes in plant operation are involved and that operation with the Gnubber inservice surveillance requirements as revised by these submittals will maintain existing margins of safety for the affected safety-related systems.
- Thus, the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for each unit do not increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety, nor has the possibility of a previously unanalyzed accident or malfunction of equipment been created.
Margins of safety have not been decreased.
As discussed in Attachment 1,
the proposed change to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications has been evaluated to be a single Class III amendment while that for Unit 2 has been evaluated to be a single Class I amendment.
The amendment fee of $4,400.00 was submitted previously ty Georgia Power Company check no. 916412 in our letter dated April 14, 1981.
J. T. Beckham, Jr. states that he is Vice President of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Company, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.
GEORGIA POWER C0hPANY q
d
,/
By :
d O 4I,b-M%
J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Sworn to anci subscribed before me this 30th day of April,1982 CxC
/
(./h(* _/ W.l./'e - -
m,..., want). hvNotary Public d
'/
j q
gy;,
GAE/mb Enclosure xc:
H. C. Nix, Jr.
R. F. Rogers, III J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-Region II)
GeorgiaPower A ATTAC K NT 1 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, PF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1, 2 PROPOSED CHANTS TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12 (c), Georgia Power Compary has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating Licenses DPR-57 and WF-5 and has determined that:
a.
The proposed amendment does not require evaluation of a new-Safety Analysis Report and rewrite of the facility license; b.
The proposed amendment does not require evaluation of several complex issues, involve ACRS review, or require an environmental impact statement; c.
The proposed amendment does not involve a complex issue or more than one envirormental or safety issue; d.
The proposed amendment does involve a single safety issue, namely, the changing of snubber inservice surveillance requirements; e.
The proposed change to Operating License DPR-57 is therefore a Class III amendment.
A similar proposed change to Operating License NPF-5 is also being submitted at this time; f.
The proposed change to Operating License WF-5 is therefore a Class I amendment.