ML20129H102
| ML20129H102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 10/02/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129H096 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9610080008 | |
| Download: ML20129H102 (2) | |
Text
-
pa arog
[-
k UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
't WASHINGTON, D.C. 20$65-4001 i
os...../
SAFETY EVAlVALIONE THE OFFICE OF NVCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 202TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DDR-57
]
AND AMENDMENT NO.143 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET N05. 50-321 AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 21, 1996, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee),
proposed license amendments to change the Technical Specifications (TS) for l
the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The proposed changes would revise the condensate storage tank level indication to ensure that the water a
level is sufficient to provide 50,000 gallons of water for core spray makeup to the reactor pressure vessel. On September 24, 1996, based on a teleconference between the licensee and the NRC project manager, it was mutually agreed to change the requested implementation schedule from 90 days to 30 days.
Specifically, the changes would revise TS 3.5.2, ECCS - Shutdown, and its associated Bases, by changing Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.2.b.
The change requires an increase in condensate storage tank (CST) water level from greater than or equal to 12 feet to greater than or equal to 13 feet for Unit 1.
The change requirement on Unit 2 is an increase from greater than or equal to 12 feet to greater than or equal to 15 feet.
This change ensures that at least 50,000 gallons of water are available for core spray (CS) makeup to the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). The licensee further proposes that the TS Bases for each unit be changed accordingly.
2.0 EVALUATION The existing TS SR 3.5.2.2.b requires a CST level of greater than or equal to 12 feet.
The basis for this requirement is that this level ensurer that the CST system can supply at least 50,000 gallons of makeup water to the RPV.
Subsequent licensee analyses confirmed that a water level of 12 feet is not equivalent to the required capacity of 150,000 gallons of water. The Plant Hatch Unit I and Unit 2 CST configurations are different for both CSTs.
In each CST, Core Spray suction is uncovered at the 100,000 gallon capacity.
For Unit 1, this capacity is equivalent to a tank level of 9 feet and a tank level of 10 feet for Unit 2.
To ensure that the CST system can supply at least s
50,000 gallons of water for core spray makeup to the RPV, calculations indicate the correct level for the Unit 1 CST is 13 feet, and the correct level for the Unit 2 CST is 15 feet.
c610080008 961002 DR ADOCK 0500 1
O r
. The change to the CST water level does not alter plant operation, and does not involve a physical modification to any structure, system, or component. The minimum CST water level for each unit is being increased to ensure that at least 50,000 gallons of water are provided above the top of the standpipe in each unit's CST and are available for CS makeup to the RPV. The TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LC-0) remain unaffected by the change that reflected the differences in the height of the CS suction standpipe within each CST, and the differences between Unit 1 and Unit 2 CST diameters.
Based on its review, the NRC staff finds that the proposed TS change to increase the CST level for Hatch Units 1 and 2 has no adverse impact on safety and does not pose an undue risk to public health and safety; therefore, it is acceptable.
f
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
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 amendments change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR i
44358 dated August 28, 1996). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
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 will be conducted in compliance with the Commission"s regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors: James A. Canady Kahtan N. Jabbour Date:
October 2, 1996