ML20099F359

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,changing Tech Specs to Revise Limiting Conditions for Operation & Surveillance Requirements for safety-related Hydraulic Snubbers.Fee Paid

ML20099F359
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	11/19/1984
From:	Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20099F364	List: ML20099F359 ML20099F380
References
NED-84-513, TAC-08298, TAC-08310, TAC-48362, TAC-48363, TAC-8298, TAC-8310, NUDOCS 8411260384
Download: ML20099F359 (3)

Text

,( e o Goorgia Power Company 333 Pedmont Avenue

' A.tranta. Georga 30308 Telephone 404 526-7020 Matng Address:

Post O!fce Box 4545 At:anta Georga 30302 Georgia Power

' J.' T. Decknam, Jr. #0 ""#* CD W'"

Vice Presdent and Generai Manaaei

. Nuclear Generaton hTD-84-513 ~

November 19, 1984 Director of N.1 clear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.' 4 Division of Licensing U. S. N1 clear Regulatory Cbmnission Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOGHIS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PIANT UNITS 1, 2 REVISION TO PROIOSED SKUBEER TECENICAL SPECIFICATIONS Gentlemen:

By letter dated November 20, 1980, the NRC recuested the mhnittal of revhed smbber Technical Specifications. Georgia Ibwer Company (GPC) responded with a aihnittal dated April 14, 1981. Several revisions to that mbnittal have been made, the latest of which was dated May 2,1984. As a rea11t of the ismance of Generic Ietter 84-13 on May 3,1984, and recent discussions between GPC and the NRC staff, a further revision to our proposed Technical Specifications is necessary.

. In accordance with the provisions of 10 GR 50.90 as recuired by 10 CFR 50.59(c) (1) , GPC proposes to amend the Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (Appendix "A" to the Operating Licenses). The proposed changes revise the limiting conditions for operation and alrveillance recuirements for safety-related hydra 11ic smbbers and establish alch recuirements for safety-related mechanical smbbers. Yte proposed changes supersede those of cur May 2,1984 mbmittal and differ from those in the earlier albnittal as discussed in Encloalre 1. Instructions for incorporation of the changes and the affected Technical Specification pages are included as Encloatres 2 and 3 for Hatch Units 1 and 2, respectively.

The proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the Plant Review Board and the Safety Feview Board and have been determined not to constitute an unreviewed safety crestion. The probability of occurrence and the consecuences of an accident or malfunction of ecuipnent important to safety wculd not be increased above those analyzed in the FSAR becalse the operation of safety-related eculpnent is not affected by the proposed changes. 7te possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type 8k DM$1&N-bN AON b9 %.AAA. l$A*H8FO!!!si31 PDR ,f(

,,.; 7

' i!GeorgiaPowerb ~

4 Director of Maclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No.-4 November 19, 1984-Page Two ,

. than any. analyzed in the FSAR,wx21d not be created by the proposed changes becaise no new ' failure mode is introdiced.. %e margin of safety as defined

in the basis -for . any 'Dechnical . Specification - wculd not. be rediced by the changes' L becmase operation of the plants ~ would remain within ' previously .

analyzed -limits. %e proposed changes have. been < evaluated and determined not to : involve significant~ hazards' considerations, -as disatssed in Dx:loaire 4.

R1ratant to i10 OR 50.91, J.J Li Iedbetter of . the Georgia ' Department of-Natural Resources will be sent a copy'of this aabmittal.

Payment of the appropriate licensing fee was made by Check No. 916412, which was incInded;in cur April 14, 1981 albnittal'.

Please contact' this office if you have any calestions.

J.' T. Beckham, Jr. states that- he ls Vice President of Georgia. Rmer' Company and is althorized to exealte this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Otmpany, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.

GDORGIA POWER COMPINY By: -

g J. T. Beckham, Jr.'

Sworn to albscribed befor p 1984.

//me this 19th daypof Ndary PubdQMNovember,. h h h_- '

Ils %CommesionSywesW1 aions Notary Riblic JH/mb Encloalre xc: H. C. Nix, Jr.

Senior Resident Inspector J. P. O'Reilly, (NRC-Region II)

J. L. Iedbetter

-mm.

IN' i -

x-S r

=

ENCICSURE l- <

NRC DOCKETS 50-321[5'0-366' ,

~.

1 OPERATING LICDISES:DPR-57, NPF-5'

. EDGIN I. }RICf 'NUCIEAR PIANT UNITS 1, l2 _

. REVISION TO PROPOFCD SMJBBER'iECHNICAL~ SPECIFICATIONSj ,

~

M' %e' changes proposed iherein - are a revised . version of those. proposed in N < Cx:'s May 2,1984 -submittal'. - Se revisions 'can be stenarized- as follows:- ,

7

~ ' l .- l DEIETION OF SymRRR LISTINGS %e_ Technical Specifications proposed -

( in .our.xMay_1 2,- 1984; sutaittal . included . snubber l listings, ~in acrordancei with . . the E NRC 1 Standard Technical; ; Specification. -. In-Generic"Intter . 84-13, < which was issued after our isubnittall L the <NRC-stated that deletion 'of such listings wasiacceptable :provided that -

the Technical Specification"was . modified : to specify which rsnubbers

-were required -_ to beEoperable. _ GPC ' has. accordingly deleted the anubber : listings 1 and, .using - the : NRC's criterion, .specified the.

snubbers required to(be operable.L he ' sane snubbers, are required to ' bel operable -as . before the revision. . Snubber listings will be -

maintained in plant procedures.

2. DELETION OF NLMERICAL ACCEPTAEE - CRITERIA KR MECHANICAL SNIRRER D9AG KRCE TESTING Our May 2, . 1984 subnittal -included a requirenent for drag force testing . of_ mechanical' anubbers. . . An-allowable drag force equal to the. greater of 5- 1bs or ' 1% of the 4

snubber's rated ' load _was specified. In a telephone conversation with NRC Region II perconnel.on Septenber 17, JGPC was ' informed that specific acceptance criteria for1 drag force need'not.be included in

~ Technical Specifications. . nese criteria- have been renoved. GPC was also informed that a relaxation of the allowable drag-force was 4

-acceptable _. to' NRC, based on a revision of the drag force

specification by the manufacturer of the; Hatch snubbers (Pacific-

. Scientific Co.) . .We are currently investigating the acceptability

of snubber; drag . forces greater than -1% 'of rated load. The i- _

acceptance criteria which will be used in surveillance tests will

[. be specified in_ plant procedures and will be consistent with~

manufacturer reconmendations and piping stress limitations.

! 3. INCIUSION OF' MECHANICAL SNUBBER AGIVATICE TESTING %e Technical l Speciffcations proposed in our. May 2, 1984 sutmittal did not i include requirenents for _ activation testing of mechanical anubbers. GPC did not consider this testing necessary because the

!- design of the Hatch mechanical snubbers is such that- their

! restraining action should not change over their expected service i lives except in the event of a catastrophic failure. This type of

.. ~

failure would -be detected in drag' force testing which was included in the proposed Technical Specifications. In the Septenber 17 i'

conversation with NBC Region II, GPC was given no alternative to the inclusion of activation testing in Twchnical Specifications.

While GPC maintains that a drag force test servas as an adequate indication of restraining ability, activation testing has been added-to the mechanical snubber surveillance requirenents.

-..s m ^

m- _ .- ._ ..-.,;.,_a--_... ,. 4 . , - , - - , . . . - . . . . _ . . . _ . _ . _ , , _ , . . - . , _ . - _ , . . . - , . , . , . _