ML20128Q995
| ML20128Q995 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Hatch |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1984 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A737 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-794 NUDOCS 8506040369 | |
| Download: ML20128Q995 (16) | |
Text
-
o i
~
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPWISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL DOCKET NO. 50-366 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-5, issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensees), for operation of the Edwin -I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
In accordance with the licensees' application for amendment dated 1
January 23, 1984, as supplemented April 3,1984, the amendment would modify the Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications to reflect the use of the new Analog Transmitter Trip System (ATTS) that is currently being installed l
at Hatch Unit 2.
The ATTS related changes include new instrument trip setpoints/ allowable values and surveillance intervals which take credit for the advantages that the new devices have over those currently installed at the plant, in terms of setpoint drift and instrument accuracy.
In addition 8506040369 841100
~
... ~.- --
7590-01 to thme types of revisions, this amendment would make a number of other types of Technical Specification changes incit. ding the following:
Changes to plant-specific equipment identification (MPL) numbers as the result of new numbering which has been assigned to ATTS components.
Changes which account for modifications to instrument loops or.
trip logic resulting from the new ATTS design.
Changes which correct minor typographical or description errors
~
found in the Hatch 2 Technical Specifications during the safety review process for ATTS. The errors found do not necessarily affect sections covering requirements for ATTS components.
Changes to the Technical Specification Bases Sections to correct existing errors and to update them with respect to the other proposed ATTS changes.
The modifications are as follows:
1.-
Change the surveillance requirements for the ATTS instrumentation to once per shift for channel checks, once per month for channel functional tests, and once per operating cycle for channel calibrations. Additional changes to the nomenclature used in the Technical Specifications are inclucled for clarification and consistency with this proposed change.
ATTS replaces the pressure, level, and temperature switches in the reactor protection system and emergency core cooling system (ECCS) with analog sensor / trip unit combinations. The system is N igned to improve sensor intelligence and reliability, while still providing continued moni-toring of critical parameters and performing the intended basic logic
O
......._..s..
7590-01 function. The licensees have stated that since the ATTS instrumentation is superior in design to the mechanical switches currently used at Hatch, certain surveillance intervals may be extended without any significant effect on the expected magnitude of sensor drift or frequency of instrument malfunction.
2.
Lower the level 2 trip setpoint/ allowable value from -38 inches to -55 inches. This will decrease the number of plant transients by decreasing the number of HPCI/RCIC (High Pressure Coolant Injection / Reactor Core Isolation Cooling) actuations due to normal operational perturbations in water level.
3.
Delete the high drywell pressure isolation trip for residual heat removal (RHR) (shutdown cooling mode), reactor pressure vessel head spray valves, and reactor water cleanup (RWCU). The purpose of this change is to stop small steam leaks in the drywell from preventing operation of the RHR and RWCU systems during the shutdown cooling mode, thereby prohibiting an acceptable nomal shutdown procedure.
4 Lower the water level trip setpoint for isolation of RWCU and secondary containment, and startup of the standby gas treatment system (SGTS) from level 3 to Level 2.
A reactor scram from nomal power (less than 50-percent rated) usually results in a reactor vessel water level transient due to a void collapse that causes RWCU isolation at Level 3.
This usually results in the dropping of the cleanup filter cake and added radwaste processing. These problems may be avoided by
.--W
7590-01 i.
lowering.RWCU isolation to Level 2.
Lowering the SGTS actuation and secondary containment isolation from level 3 to Level 2 reduces the potential for spurious isolations.
l 5.
Designate the hot leg sensor of the RWCU area ventilation high temperature differential instrument as the RWCU area high temperature sensor, eliminating the current RWCU area high temperature sensor. Use of the hot leg of the differential temperature sensor for the high ambient temperature trip rather than using an independent trip element trip device may cause slight changes in the sensitivity of the RCWU area leak detection system, depending upon the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) design, but it will not defeat the intended function of the system.
In general, this new arrangement will create more reliable leakage detection since the HVAC system will be drawing.
air across the resistance temperature detectors (RTDs). Therefore, there is no possibility of the sensors being located in a dead air space relative to certain break locations in the room.
6.
-Delete high drywell pressure sensors E11-N011A, B, C, O that are currently assigned a trip function for the Core Spray, RHR and HPCI and replace them with sensors E11-N010A, B, C, O that are also currently assigned a trip function for the automatic depressurization system (A05).
(There is an editorial error in the current Technical Specification Table 3.3.3-1, Item 4a. The ADS high drywell pressure trip sensors should have been listed as E11-N010A, B, C, 0.)
.....,.,.-__...e...
l 7590-01 J-Since these sensors (E11-N010A, B, C, D) are being incorporated into the new ATTS modification, their numbers are being changed to E11-N694A, B, C, D.
7.
Replace the trip setpoints listed in the Technical Specifications with t
newly generated allowable values.
The purpose of this change is to update the Technical Specification trip setpoints for instruments being replaced by the ATTS. Since the time that the original i
setpoints were determined, a better calculational method has been developed. This proposed. change uses Regulatory Guide 1.105 methodology in updating the setpoints for the instruments being replaced with the new ATTS units and takes credit for the improved error and drift characteristics of the new system.
8.
Delete the reactor steam dome pressure permissive which prevents the group 1 isolation valves from being bypassed on a low condenser vacuum isolation at reactor pressure above the scram setpoint. With the permissive deleted, the operator may open the valves from a hot pressurized condition before clearing a scram.
Currently, the operator must clear the scram signal prior to opening the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) when in this condition.
9.
Lower the reactor vessel water level-high (Level 8) trip setpoint from 58 inches to 56.5 inches. The licensees stated that they used the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.105 in determining this revised setpoint.
\\
-e,,ev
,,-.-----.----,,,.----....----e..---.-..,-,--c..-
, ~ -
,,,. ~... -.
.. -.....,. -.. ~.
-. - -., - ~...-
7590-01 :
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Consission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Consission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Consission's regula-tions in 10 CFR 50.92, this mecns that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility or a new or different kind of accident from any accident pre-viously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The ifcensees have provided the following evaluations against each of the above three criteria for each of the proposed changes:
Change 1
- 1) The proposed surveillance requirement changes would not significantly i
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the new ATTS instruments have been demonstrated to be I
superior in design to the existing devices in terms of instrument inac-curacy and drift characteristics.
In addition, the new setpoints have been rigorously calculated assuming the proposed surveillance frecuencies.
- 2) The proposed surveillance requirement changes would not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated because the new surveillance intervals for ATTS were developed to be consistent with the Hatch Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) descriptions.
l
..-.._.._..-,,..~.--...,------._:_--.-__- _
7590-01 3) The proposed surveillance requirement changes would not involve a
~
significant reduction in a margin of safety because the new surveil-lance requirements are tailored to the ATTS instruments using the methodology of Regulatory Guide 1.105.
In addition, the basis for the margins of safety, as described in the FSAR, have been maintained.
Change 2 1)
This change would not significantly increase the probability or con -
secuences of an accident previously evaluated because a veevaluation of the FSAR analysis showed that the new setpoint in conjunction with the new ATTS instrumentation would still provide the same degree of plant protection as described in the FSAR.
2)
This change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the lowered setpoint is still within the bounds of the plant safety analysis and should decrease the number of unnecessary ECCS actuation system challenges.
3)
This change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the setpoint still performs its intended safety function as described in the FSAR.
In addition, the calculations N
which determined the new setpoint took credit for the improved drift characteristics of the ATTS instruments and the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.105.
9 e
7590-01
- Change 3
- 1) This change would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the requirements of 10 CFR 100 are still met, and the Appendix X calculations are not affected.
- 2) This change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated becauce the deletion of the drywell pressure isolation is only being made on closed-loop systems.
In addition, Georgia Power Company has determined that the reactor vessel low water level trip function which isolates the shutdown cooling mode of RHR and RWCU is adequate for reactor protection.
Furthermore, this change does eliminate the possibility for_ isolation of the shutdown cooling system, due to high drywell pressure, during periods when its function is essential for adequate decay heat removal.
- 3) This change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the high drywell pressure isolation has little effect in preventing coolant losses and presently hin'fers the operability of the RHR l
shutdown cooling systems during certain plant scenarios.
Change 4
- 1) These changes would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident from any accident previously evaluated because i
the FSAR ECCS analysis algeady assumes SGTS initiation at level 2.
l Secondary containment requires a functioning train of SGTS for full t
i e
h l
~
J 7590-01 effectiveness, and isolation of the containment building is assumed to be simultaneous with SGTS initiation in the FSAR analysis.
In addition, the changes will reduce operability problems associated with RWCU and secondary containment isolations.
i
- 2) These changes would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previcusly evaluated because the lower setpoint is within the bounds of the FSAR analysis and will not change the basic functions of these trips.
- 3) These changes would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of I
safety because these trips still perform their intended functions as described in the FSAR.
Change 5
- 1) The modification would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because this change is
~~
consistent with the applicable criteria listed in Sections 3.1 and 7.1.2 and in Appendix A of the FSAR and in general is more reliable in detecting leaks.
- 2) The modification would not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated because plant trip logic remains unchanged, and the current single-failure criteria are maintained.
- 3) The modification would not involve a significant reduction in a margin l
I of safety because single-failure criteria and the level of redundancy for each trip function are maintained. Also, in general, the new location of the sensors will be more reliable for detecting leaks.
i
. -.. L -.--
..~
7590-01 '
Change 6
- 1) This change would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because this change is consistent with applicable criteria listed in Sections 3.1 and 7.1.2 and in Appendix A of the FSAR.
- 2) This change would not~ create the possibility of a new or different accident from any accident previously evaluated because the basic trip functions and trip system redundancies, as described in the FSAR, are 4
unchanged.
- 3) This change would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because single-failure criteria and the level of redundancy for 1
each trip function are maintained, and the new surveillance requirements are consistent with the capabilities of the new ATTS instrumentation.
Change 7
- 1) These changes would not significantly increase the probability or
~~
j consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the new ATTS instruments are of a superior design as compared to the current instruments, j
In addition, the setpoints were determined using the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.105 and therefore still meet the FSAR criteria.
- 2) These changes would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the basic trip functions, as described in the FSAR, are unchanged.
1 l
.._,._____[_____.
7590-01 3) These changes would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because for most trips the original design basis was maintained.
Any new design bases were fully addressed with regard to the FSAR requirements.
In addition, the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.105 were used in the calculation of the new setpoints.
Change 8
- 1) The modification would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the permissive being deleted does not perform a safety function.
- 2) The modification would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because the elimination of this permissive has no effect on the reactor protection system. Also, the manual bypass of MSIV closure,is performed only when the reactor is not operating at full power.
3)
The modification would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the permissive being deleted does not perform a safety function.
We agree with the licensees
- evaluations that changes 1 through 8 meet the three criteria of the Commission's cuidance as stated above.
The Connission his also provided guidance for the application of the criteria in 10 CFR 50.92 by providing examples of amendments that are considered not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration (48 FR 14870). One such example is (ii), a change that constitutes an J
a 7590-01 additional limitation, restriction or control not presently included in the i
Technical Specifications.
1 Change 9,'noted above, lowers the level at which a high reactor water level action will be taken and therefore constitutes a more conservative 4
and restrictive requirement than the existing requirement.
Therefore, it is similar to the above example (ii).
On the bases stated above, the Commission proposes to determine that the application for amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any. comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless,it receives a request for a hearing.
Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555, ATTN:
Docketing and Service Branch.
By June 14, 1984 the licensees may file a rcouest for a hearino with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding l
and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene.
Pecuest for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules
.~.
7590-01 of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 0FR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the recuest and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety _
and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 52.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The peti-tion should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's ri;ht under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any qrder which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition with-out requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the peti-tion to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought
7590-01 4 to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fail's to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the oppor-tunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the oppor-tunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
.If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration.. any hearing held wculd take place before the issugnce of any amendment.
4 Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the exp ration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may isr.ua the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided
L..
.,..,n.-,.- - ~..n.-
- -.~~ -
- -~ -
7590-01
' that its final detemination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed wi.th the Secretary of the Connission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D. C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL. REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to i
the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to G. F. Trowbridge, Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036, attorney for the licensees.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a detemination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the Atomic
7590-01 Safety and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request. That determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Conunission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of May 1984 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ul Jfhn
. Stolz, Chief
,)
$p ating Retetors BraneW #4 Ofvision of Licensing
~
~
t.
.. ga aug*h,
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h
UNITED STATES y-a 3,
j: I wAsm NGTON. D. C. 20585
\\['.C#
May 10,1984 Docke*:s Nos. 50-321 and 50-366 Mr. J. T. Beckham, Jr.
Vice President-Nuclear Generation Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302
Dear Mr. Beckham:
The Comission has requested the Office of the Federal Register to publish the enclosed " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity for Prior Hearing." This notice relates to your application for amendments dated February 6,1984, as amended April 3,1984, which would revise the Technical Specifications for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units Nos.1 and 2, to implement the Average
~
Power Range Monitor / Rod Block Monitor Technical Specification Improvement Program.
Sincerely,
/e _
Joh
. Stolz, Chief 0
ating Reactors Br ch No. 4 ision of Licensing
Enclosure:
Notice cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
f.', '.'
Hatch 1/2
. Georgia Power Company, 50-321/366 cc w/ enclosure (s):
Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Administrator Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1800 M Street, N.W.
Region II Washington, D. C.
20036 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 s
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Ruble A. Thomas Vice President P. O. Box 2625 Southern Company Services, Inc.
Binningham, Alabam 35202 Ozen Batum Southern Company Services Inc.
Charles H. Badger Post Office Box 2525 Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 270 Washington Street, S.W.
Chairman Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Appling County Comissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513 J. Leonard Ledbetter, commissioner Mr. L. T. Gucwa Department of Natural Resources Georgia Power Company 270 Washington. Street, N.W.
Engineering Department Atlanta, Georgia 30334 P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Mr. H. C. Nix, Jr. General Manager Edwin I.' Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Radiation Representative EPA Region IV 345 Courtland Street,"N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(
Resident 15spector U. S. Iluclear Regulatory Comission Route 1. P. O. Box 279 Baxley, Georgia 31513 O
_.______,,-.------,e------
--= ^-
~ ' ' - ' ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' - ~ ~ - -
\\
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL DOCKETS N05. 50-321 and 50-366 l
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMEN 0MENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PRIOR HEARING The United States Nuclear Regulatory Connission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos.
DPR-57 and NPF-5 issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton.
Georgia,(thelicensees),foroperationoftheEdwinI.HatchNuclear Plant, Units Nos.1 and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.
In accordance with the licensees' app 1ication for amendment dated February 6,1984, as supplemented April 3,1984, the amendments would modify the Technical Specifications for both Units 1 and 2 as follows:
1.
Change the slope of the flow-biased Average Power Range Monitor / Simulated i
Thermal Power Monitor (APRM/STPM) scram and rod block setpoints from 0.66 to 0.58 and change their intercept values such that, at rated core flow, '
j the setpoints are unchanged from their current values.
2.
Delete the requirement for setdown of the APRM/STPM flow-biased scram i
and rod block setpoints when core maximum fraction of limiting power density (MFLPD) exceeds the fraction of core rated thennel power (core UW
. 7590-01 total peaking factor exceeding design peaking factor)..In order t'o maintain function and margins, replace the setdown requirement with new multipliers to the minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) and average planar-linear heat generation rate (APLHGR) operating limits when core power or flow conditions are less than the licensed conditions.
3.
Replace the Rod Block Monitor (RBM) flow-biased trip equation with j
power-dependent setpoint definitions, incorporate R8M filter and time d
delay setpoints, and change the RBM downscale trip setpoint. Add appropriate RBM operability and surveillance requirements, including the definition of Limiting Rod Pattern for Rod Withdrawal Error (RWE).
4 The amendments would make editorial ch'anges to the Technical l
Specifications for Unit 1 only as foll.ows:
~
Clarify (1) the definition of the bypass power 1evel, below which a.
turbine stop and control valve-position scrams are not required; (2) the descriptions of the functional dependence of the operating limit M'CPR and the APLHGR limit; (3) the figure captions assigned to the rated power-rated flow MCPR operating limits; (4) the nomenclature used and the maximum allowable
{
setpoint for the APRM high neutron flux scram and the STPM scram; (5) the numbering of sections under the Limiting System Safety Settings Neutron Flux Trips; (6) the nomenclature for the APRM i
Rod Block and R8M upscale trips; and (7) the references to i
limiting Rod Pattern, adding the phrase "for RWE".
I b.
Change the Technical Specification bases to (1) delete references 4
to the APRM/STPM scram and rod block peaking factor setdown 4
requirement; (2) identify the RBM system logic changes and l
. 7590-01 operability requirements; (3) replace references to the K f
analysis bases with descriptions of the MCPR bases and add p
descriptions of the K MCPR multiplier, the power and i
p flow-dependent MAPLHGR multipliers, and the governing MCPR operating limit and MAPLHGR limit; (4) delete the Core Thermal
. Power Limit versus Core Flow Rate Map (Figure 1.1-1) and add a reference to document where the correct map is presented; and (5) correct a reference to the 80*F Loss of Feedwater Heating Event.
5.
The amendments would make editorial changes to Technical Specifications for Hatch Unit 2 only as follows:
Clarify (1) the definition of the bypass power level below a.
which turbine stop and control valve position scrams are not required; (2) the descriptions of the functional dependence of
~
the operating limit MCPR and the APLHGR limit; (3) the figure
. captions assigned to the rated power-rated flow MCPR operating limits; and (4) footnote (a) in Table 3:3.5-2 relating to the APRM rod block flow dependence.
b.
Change the Technical Specification bases to (1) delete references to the APRM/STPM scram and rod block factor setdown requirement; (2) identify the RBM system logic changes and.
operability requirements; (3) replace references to the K f
anaiysisbaseswithdescriptionsoftheMCPR bases and add 7
descriptions of the K MCPR multiplier, the power and p
flow-dependent MAPLHGR multipliers, and the governing MCPR operating limit and MAPLHGR limit; (4) add a clarifying remark to the introduction of the Power Distribution Limits. Bases; (5) add to the lists of references there appropriate; and (6) delete a reference to cycie-specific OLMCPR transient results.
___.________...______..__._______...,..~2__
h
' 7590-01 Prior to issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
By June 14, 1984, the licensees may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating licenses and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to' intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to' intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's
" Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Board, designated by the Commission or by tne Chairman of the Atomic Safety
~
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition and the l
Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of-hearing or an appropriate order, f
As required by 10 CFR 92.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and r
l how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other i
interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may
/
~
5-7590-01 t
be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspec't(s) of the subject matter of the pro-ceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen -(15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the peti-tion to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with
. reasonable specificity.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the
~~
scope of the amendments under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will' not be pemitted to participate as a party.
Those pemitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the oppor-tunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be filed with the Secretary of the Connission, United States Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of 'the notice period,
,-.,,,,,m-.
..,.-..,w
,y n,,.y-
.w.w m,,,.,
,.,,,,,.,-.,m_..,,m,_..
- -.,... -_-+. --.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I.-
~ 7590-01 it is requested that the petitioner promptly so infom the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz:
(petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed;' plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Washington, D.C.
- 20555, and to G. F. Trowbridge,.Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, attorney for the licensees.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a detemination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has made a substantial showing of good cause for the
~
granting of a late petition and/or request. That. determination will be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated February 6,1984, as supplemented April 3,1984, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of May,1984.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION RQ.l. f* % /'
'?
John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Br'anch #4
( Divisidn of Licensing-
~
s 7590-01 UNITEbSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-321 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSEB NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility _0perating License No. OPR-57 issued to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensees) for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Appling County, Georgia.
The proposed amendment would provide a one time extension of the l
surveillance interval applicable to the testing of the drywell and torus headers and nozzles as described in Section 4.5.B.1.a of the Technical Specifications. The proposed extension would increase the grace period from 25% to 30% of the nominal surveillance interval, and also would allow the licensee to perform the required testing at the end of an operating cycle (Cycle 8) scheduled for September 1,1984 In the absence of this extension, the licensee would be required to shutdown the unit on or before June 19, 1984 f
t$ /A s *l A L.lf
,C 4 t A l ~
T Y 'T nv wu
d*
~
7590-01
'2-i 4
'These revisions to the Technical Specifications would be made in response to the licensee's application for amendment dated May 29, 1984 Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will
.have made. findings required by the Atomic Enargy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and. the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed detennination,that the amendment recuest involves no significant hazards ' consideration.
Under the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR.50.92, this means that operation of-the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of acciden.t from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a signific' ant reduction in a margin of safety.
A significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not involved in this amendment because:
(a) Chapter 14.4 of the Hatch 1 FSAR showed that operation of the containment spray system is not necessary to maintain the peak-pres-sures under accident conditions in the drywell below the design value.
(b)
For the enveloping event, operation of the containment spray changes the temporal behavior of pressure in the primary contain-ment such that the second pressure peak is lower (11.8 psig versus 14.3 psig), with no change in the first pressure peak (approximately 45 psig).
The design value of the containment pressure capability l
is 56 psig.
Thus, the primary margin against containment over-pressure remains unchanged whether or not the spray system operates.
l
.~
-.- - - -. -. _ - ~
4 y
7590-01 3-The possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated is.not created by approving this amendment because the extension of the surveil. lance interval does not involve new modes of operation.
The amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety for thi following reasons:
(a) The period of uncertainty for availability of the spray system is increased from 5 years plus 25% to 5 years plus 30%.
The increased probability of unavailability is small.
(b)
The increased pressure in.the second peak under the design basis accident conditions could increase the leakage out of the drywell.
Since the analysis provided in the FSAR envelopes this accident, the decrease in the margin is small.
Therefore, based on these considerations and the three criteria given above, the Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission has determined that fail ~ure to act in a timely way would result in an earlier than scheduled shutdown.
Therefore, the Commission has insufficient time to issue its usual 30-day notice of the proposed action for public comment.
If the proposed determination becomes final, an opportunity for a hearing will be published in the Federal Register at a later date and any hearing request will not delay the effective date of the amendment.
A e
9
- ef
-9
+ t +e -#
W it
-v o we a r a es-we sw = va e r
w
-r" - - * ' - - * - - - - ' ' ' ' ' - - =
a
' l 7590-01 4-If the Comission decides in its final determination that the amendment does involve a significant hazards consideration, a notice of opportunity for a prior hearing will be. published in the Federal Register and, if a hearing is granted, it will be held before any amendment is issued.
The Comission is seeking public coments'on this proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration., Coments on the proposed determination may be telephoned to George Rivenbark, Acting Chief of Operating Reactors Branch No. 4, by collect cal 1 to 301-492-7136 or submitted in writing to the Secretary of the Commission, d.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555,kttn:
Docketing and Service Branch.
All coments received by June.18,1984 will be considered'in reaching a final determination.
A copy of tihe application may be examined at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 31st day of May 1984 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4c) ctb /
c-c e t,
- s G orge
. Rivenbark, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Licensing 4
y n
.n,
,