ML20154D550

Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,revising Tech Specs Suppression Pool Temp Limit.Fee Paid

ML20154D550
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	09/06/1988
From:	Hairston W GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20154D553	List: ML20154D550 ML20154D557
References
HL-31, NUDOCS 8809150319
Download: ML20154D550 (5)

Text

. - --

, Cecq4 Ptnet Cmcany 313 P edmort A.gwe

• . Ar4 4a Gecqa 30328 *

• , i Tvertorw 404 $26 6526 . '

F t eE 4545 Ana>a Gog a 30302 l

W. G. Hskston. \tt t e sM*en mac w:Mn W ct V ct havWA w w c w anons HL-31 2107C X7GJ17-H600 September 6, 1988 r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission '

ATTN: Document Control Desk ,

l Washington, D.C. 20555 l

1 PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 l NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 '

OPERATING LICENSES OPR-57, NPF-5  !

REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS: i SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE LIMIT  !

\

Gentlemen: l l  !

In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90, as required by  !

10 CFR 50.59(c)(1), Georgia Power 'ompany (GPC) hereby proposes changes l l

to the Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications, Appendix A to i Operating Licenses DPR-57 and NPF-5.

l Technical Specifications for both Plant Hatch units provide a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) requiring plant shutdown in the event the suppression pool temperature exceeds 95'F for greater than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Because of high summer temperatures and a prolonged drought in the state of Georgia, the temperature of the Altamaha River, which serves ,

as the ultimate heat sink for the plant service water and residual heat '

l I

removal systems, of ten rises to the soint where sufficient differential temperature is not available to effectively maintain the suppression pool f temperature below 95'F. In the past, Plant Hatch has entered the LCO for r several hours, and GPC submitted an emergency Technical Specifications '

change for relief. However, since the suppression pool temperature was t restored to within limits, the relief was not required. (Reference CPC  ;

letter to the NRC dated August 14, 1987.)  !

Since the problem is recurrent, GPC proposes a permanent Technical I Specifications change to increase the operating suppression pool l temperature limit from 95'F to 100*F. Enclosures 1 and 2 in conjunction  !

with the Reference 1 report, contain the justification for the increase i to 100'F. This submittal is similar to our May 13, 1988 Technical r Specification submittal which proposed removal of the operating '

suppression pool temperature limit, and required pool cooling to be t initiated at 100'F and a reactor shutdown at 110'F. Since GPC would gain j significant operating flexibility from removal of the operating pool I temperature limit, we request that the May 13, 1988 Technical  !

l Specifications amendment request continue to undergo NRC review and be i granted after this Technical Specification amendment. i f0 p gij% i d

0 P

i -

l ,.

i .

i .

t Georgialimer d

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 6, 1988 Page Two '

j Enclosure 1 provides the detailed descriptions of the proposed ,

changes and the circumstances necessitating the change request.  ;

Enclosure 2 details the bases for our determination that the l proposed changes do not involve significant hazards considerations, t Enclosure 3 provides page change instructions for int.orporattng the l proposed changes into the Technical Specifications. The p oposed 1. hanged l pages for Unit I and Unit 2 follow Enclosure 3. l i

Reference 1 is a safety evaluation prepared by General Electric i Company justifying the deletion of the operating limit en the suppressinn t pool temperature. It was submitted as Enclosure 4 of GP('s May 13,19tb ,

submittal and, therefore, is not included in this submittal.

l Payment of the filing fee in the amount of one hindred and fif ty I dollars is enclosed. 1 To allow time for procedure revisions and orderly incarporation into l copies of the Technical Specifications, GPC requests the propqsed  !

amendment, once approved by the NRC, be issued with an effective date to i be no later than 60 days from the date of issuance of the amendment, j In accordance to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.91, a copy of this l 1etter and all applicable enclosures will be sent to Mr. J. L. Ledbetter i of the Environmental Protection Olvision of the Georgia DepartMnt of i Natural Resources.  !

Mr. H. G. Hairston, !!! states he is Senior Vice President -of  !

i Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this of.th on tshalf of  !

Georgia Power Company, and to the best of his knowledge and belief, the facts set forth in this letter are true. '

1 GEORGIA PCHER COMPANY j ey: lh . boo M M H. G. Hatrston, !!!

l Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of September 1988, i

~ L. AY mar O '***

Notiry Pu61tc 1 GKM/ac )

1 2107C j l l

! ' Georgia Pot',er i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission *

} September 6, 1988 i Page Three~ ,

i

Enclosures:

l j 1. Basis for Change Request. .

3

2. 10 CFR 50.92 Evaluation.  !

3. Page Change Instructions.

l 4 Filing Fee - $150.00

)

Reference:

1. "Elimination of the Suppression Pool Temperature Limit for Plant '

l I Hatch Units 1 and 2," EAS-19-0388.  ;

i c: Georgia Poqq._Cogginy i Mr. H. C. Nix, J;* , General Manager - Hatch  !

1 Mr. L. T. Gucwa, Manager, Licensing and Engineering - Hatch -

J GO-NORMS j

! U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Comission. Washinoton. D.C.

I Mr. L. P. Crocker, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch  !

} l j U.S. Nuclear Reculatorv Commission. Reaton II  :

Dr. J. N. Grace, Re ional Administrator '(

Mr. J. E. Menning, enior Resident Inspector - Hatch  ;

I  !

]

itate _of Gtatgit i Mr. J. L. Ledbetter, Commissioner - Department of Natural Resources  !

I i i

l 1

4 6 1

! l l '

l i r i

! l i ,

I 1

j 2107C l

1

Georgia Power d 1

ENCLOSURE 1

, PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 l OPERATING LICENSES OPR-57, NPF-5 l REQUEST TO REVISE TECH!!ICAL SPECIFFATIONS:

i SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE LIMIT l BASIS FOR CHANGE RE00EST PROPOSED CHANGE:

The proposed amendments to the Unit I and Unit 2 Technical Specifications will raise the 95'F Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on suppression l pool temperature to 100*F. The 105'F limit on allowable pool temperature I during safety system testing which adds heat to the suppression pool, ,

l will not be changed. Also, the suppression pool temperatur6 31mit (SPTL) l requiring immediate pihnt shutdown C 10* F) and vessel depressurization (120'F) will remain unchanged. Roference 1, a Plant Hatch-specific evaluation performed by General Electric Cor.pany, demonstrates the design basis requirements are satisfied as long as the operating limits are less than the 110'F SPTL requiring immediate shutdovn. The increase in the operating SPTL to 100'F (proposed herein) is bounded by the analyses presented in Reference 1.

I Basis for Procosed Chanae:

Historically, the SPTL for normal operation has been chosen based on the maximum expected <ervice watar temperature. For Plant Hatch, this temperature is 95'F. Mant 7.icensing analyses use this pool temperature l as the initial condition. Generic evaluations performed for the Bolling Hater Reactor Owners Group (BHROG) SPTL Committee show the normal operating SPTL for BHRs with Mark I Containments can be raised to 110'F with no adverse impact on safety.

Reference 1 (EAS-19-0388) details the results of the Plant Hatch l evaluations and provides the technical bases bounding the proposad Technical Speci'ications changes. The evaluations show that the proposed l

changes are accepta~ o le and consider the effect of these changes on saiety I

relief valve (SRV) loads, containment response, and emergency core l cooling system (ECCS) performance.

l 1

l l

l 2107C El-1 9/06/88 HL-31

Georgia Pa,ver d ENCLOSURE 2 PLANT HATCH - UNITS 1, 2 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 REQUEST TO REVISE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS:

SUPPRESSION POOL TEMPERATURE LIMIT 10 CFR 50.92 EVALUATION PROPOSED CHANGE:

The proposed change wil modify Unit 1 Tetanical Specification 3.7.A.I.c and 3.7.a.1.d to in:rease the operating suppress *on pool water Similarly, the Unit 2 Limiting

~

temperature limit from 95'F to iOO'F.

Condition for Operation Specification 3.6.2.1.b and the resulting Action Statement will be modified to reflect the change in the operating temperature limit to 100'F.

Basis for Procosed Chanae:

See Enclosure 1 and Reference 1 for a detailed description of the safety basis for the proposed change. Based on these documents, the following conclusions can be drawn:

This change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, because applicable accident analyses that could be impacted by raising the suppression pool operating limit have been examined and found to be acceptable.

The immt,1ediate shutdown (scram) and depressurization limit , and the allowable operating temperatu.*e limit of 10S'F when performing testing (adding heat to the pool) are unchanged. '

The possibility of a different kind of accident from any analyzed previously is not created by this change, since the proposed change would only revise an operating limit on permissible pool temperature. This change does not involve the potential for a new accident type, since plant design and function are unchanged.

Margins of safety are not significantly reduced by this change, because the impact of the proposed pool tempstature ha: bs:n evaluated relative to safety analyses (Reference 1), and margins have been shown to be insignificantly impacted. Sufficient heat capacity remains in the suppression pool for complete condensation of decay and sensible heat following an accident or reactor shutdown.

I

2107C E2-1 9/06/88 1 HL-31  ;

_ . _ .