ML20141A544
| ML20141A544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141A522 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8604040504 | |
| Download: ML20141A544 (3) | |
Text
"
o
(:NITED STATES
~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666
\\..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NOS.12a AND 6?
TO FACILITY
~
~
UPERATIh6 LICENSE N05. DPR-57 AND NPF-S GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CO'RTdEATION NUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORllTDTTEORGTA
~~~ CITY OF DALTON, GE0liGIA EDWIN I. HATCJi NUCLEAR Pl ANT, UNITS NGS 1 AND 2 DOCAET NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ANDEVALUf. TION On December 21, 1983, Georgia Power Company (licensee) requested changes to the Hatch Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications (TSs) for the Hydrogen and Oxygen Post-Accident Monitors. This request, related to THI Item II.F.I.1, was supplemented by the licensee on April 16, 1984. These regeested changes are discussed teluw:
A.
The licensee requested that the range of the Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer listed in Table 3.2-11 of the Unit 1 TSs be changed from 0 to 52 to O to 5%.
The licensee provided the following tasis:
"This change is purely administrative in that it corrects a typographical error inserted into the Technical Specifications by Amendment No. 79. This change would have no effect on existing accident probabilities or consequences, would not create any new type of accident scenario, and wculd not decrease the margin of safety." We agree with the licensee and conclude that this change is acceptabic.
B.
The licensee has requested that TS Table 3.2.11 note (c) be deleted from the Action column for the Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer listed as item 11 in this table. This note allowed cperation for 30 days whenever a parameter (hydrogen or oxygen in this case) is reduced to one indication.
It allows operation for seven drys if one of the parameters is not indicated in the control room if surveillance at local panels is substituted for the missing control room indication during the seven days. TS 3.7.A.6c provides a redundant and nure restrictive requirement for operability of the Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer in that it requires at least one Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer to be operable whenever the reactcr is in pcwer operation and TS 3.7.A.8 requires the plant to be brought to hot shutdown within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> if TS 3.7.A.6.c cannot be met.
Since TS 3.7.A.6c and TS 3.7.A.8 are more restrictive on the operation of the Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer than is note (c), removal of note (c) as a requirement for the Hydrogen and Oxygen Anclyzer is acceptable.
40gog 9
l !
C.
The licensee requested that a new note be added to TS Table 3.2.11 and made applicable to the Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer.
This note would require that the Hydrogen and Oxygen Analyzer be i
operable with continuous sampling capability within 30 minutes of I
an ECCS actuation during a LOCA. This requirement is consistent with the requirements of NUREG-0737 " Clarification of TM1 Action Plant Requirements", Item II.F.1.6 and is acceptable. We have designated this new note as note (1).
D.
The licensee requested that the instrument check minimum freocency as listed in Table 4.2-11 of the Unit 1 TS be changed from "Each Shift" to " Monthly." The licensee provided the following basis:
"This change would decrease the frequency of Instrument Checks.
However, operating experience has shewn that frequent operation of the H, and 0 analyzers tends to lower the reliability of that 2
equipment. Furthermore, the vendor for these analyzers has recommended the monthly instrument check frequency as being optimal for maintaining maximum equipment operability." We note that the present STS suggest a monthly frequency. We conclude that this request is acceptable, i
E.
The licensee requested that the instrument calibration minimum frequency for the He and 0 analyzer as listed in Table 3.2-11 cf the 2
Unit 1 TS be change 8 from Every 6 months" to "Every 3 months." The licensee provided the following basis: "This change constitutes a more restrictive operational limitation. The new calibration interval is consistent with the vendor's recomendations for these analyzers.
The probability of a postulated accident occurring and the effects resulting from any such accident are unchanged. The Technical 1
Specification chtnges create no :.ew accident scenario, and increase i
the margin of safety." The staff notes that the mininur, frequency I
recommended in the STS is once each refueling. The Generic Letter recomended once each 92 days. The staff has concluded that'the licensee has provided a sound technical bat,is for the request and that the basis is as conservative or more conservative than past staff guidance. Therefore, we conclude that this change is acceptable.
4 1
1
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
i The amendments involve changes in a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed findirg that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilitycriteriaforcategoricalexclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environment impact statement or environmental I
assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the arendments.
i i l l
3.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not ba endangered by operation in the proposed mant;er, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the comon def ense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: March 26, 1986 Principal Contributor: Ray Scholl, G. Rivenbark i
e n
-