ML20084D017

Application to Amend License NPF-5,revising Tech Specs to Provide Clear Surveillance Requirements & Setpoints for Demonstrating Operability of ATWS Recirculation Pump Trip Instruments

ML20084D017
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	04/23/1984
From:	Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20084D020	List: ML20084D017 ML20084D024
References
NED-84-159, TAC-55543, NUDOCS 8405010136
Download: ML20084D017 (4)

Text

. . . . _ . _ . - . - . - - - -_ ._ -

- >~_

k 5 .  : ' g 333 Perme Aw,#

AU;1 "3 GMrg a 3&H f

Te9 pt:no .:M*+'W Vdant) 40 e Put C" m Em b r Avta Georg a 303T Georgia Power l 4 J. T. Beckham. Jr.

stn re c .cf 3.g Ger y *.*r or as w c- em NED-84-159 April 23,1984 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKFr 50-366  :

OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 '

EIWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), Georgia Power Company hereby proposes a change to the Technical Specifications, Appendix A to Operating License DPR-57.

The proposed change will provide clear surveillance requirements and setpoints for demonstrating operability of the ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) RPr (Recirculation Pump Trip) instruments. These instrtments trip the recirculation pump iotor-generator sets on low reactor vessel water level and high reactor vessel steam dome _ pressure. Presently these instruments are included in the notes to the Reactor Protection System (RPS) instrumentation table (Table 3.3.1-1). However, no surveillance requirements for these instruments are explicitly included in the corresponding RPS surveillance table (Table 4.3.1-1), nor does ~ any section of the Technical Specifications include the setpoints for these-

- instrtments. The instruments are presently surveilled to the requirements of the Hatch Unit 1 Technical Specifications. The lack of clear surveillance requirements has caused confusion and missed surveillances, as noted in NRC ISE Inspection Report 50-366/83-26,- dated February 1, 1984.

The proposed change adds a new section 3/4.3.9, "ATWS Recirculation Ptap Trip Actuation Instrumentation." Based -on the corresponding section in Standard Technical Specifications, this section contains operability; requirements, action statements, and instrument setpoint and surveillance tables for the ATWS RPT instruments. - The surveillance intervals have been chosen to be consistent with those for the corresponding- instruments in the' Hatch Unit 1 Technical Specifications.

The ATWS RPT instruments which actuate on low reactor water level are being replaced under the Analog Transmitter Trip System (ATTS) program. 'Ihe new analog instruments will have different part numbers and surveillance requirements . than those specified in the present Technical Specifications, -g_

, .which form the basis for this submittal. Technical Specification changes

e405010136 840423

% f/ 00 DRADOCKOSOOOg glj

1 Georgia Power A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Nuclear Reactor Regulation Washington, D. C.

April 23,1984 Page Two reflecting the ATTS installation were submitted to NRC on January 23, 1984, and are currently under consideration. ATTS is expected to be operational upon Unit 2 starttp at the end of the current outage. Please contact this office for any necessary assistance in correlating this submittal with our ATTS submittal of January 23, 1984.

The Plant Review Board and the Safety Review Board have reviewed the proposed changes and detemined that they do not constitute an unreviewed safety question. Probabilities and consequences of analyzed accidents will not be adversely affected, since surveillance requirements are merely being clarified. No new types of accidents are created. Margins of safety should be increased with the clarification of surveillance requirements.

We have determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92, that the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration. Attachments are included detailing this determination, amendment class detemination, and changed pages. Applicable licensing fees are included.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91, Mr. J. L. Ledbetter of the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources will be sent a copy of this letter and all applicable attachments.

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.

l GIDRGIA POWER COMPANY l

1. n AA ,~m 7 By:

J. T. Beckham, Jr. ' ! Sworn'to s scribed before me this 23rd day of April,1984. w {r -

            ~ (/         '

Notuty' ~ ~ ~ ic REB / g" Enclosures Nowy PubNc,Osorgie.Some W tage mycme,imur2s was xc: H. C. Nix, Jr. Senior Resident Inspector l J. P. O'Reilly, (NRC-Region II) l J. L. Ledbetter I i

ATTACINENT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EIMIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 10 CFR 50.92 EVALUATION

1. Add new Section 3.3.9 to Unit 2 Technical Specifications:

BASIS: This charge is not a significant hazards consideration in that it adds explicit surveillance requirements for ATWS RPr instrumentation. This change constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Technical Specifications, although the subject surveillances are being performed under plant procedures. Therefore, this change is consistent with Item (ii) of " Examples of Amendments that are Considered Not Likely to Involve Significant Hazards Considerations," page 14870 of the Federal Register, April 6,1983. l

ATTACINENT 2 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EIMIN I. IIATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 , DETHLMINATION OF AMENDMENT CLASS Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22, Georgia Power Company has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating License NPF-5, and has detennined 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 pmposed amendment does not involve a complex issue or more than one environmental or safety issue;

d. The pmposed amendment does not involve a single safety or environmental issue.

e. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature; namely, addition of a new section which includes surveillance requirements for instrumentation whose mquirements were previously not clear.

f. The proposed amendment is therefore a Class II amendment.

__ .}}