ML20207G772
| ML20207G772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207G744 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-64562, NUDOCS 8808240229 | |
| Download: ML20207G772 (3) | |
Text
- }?
UNITED STATES i
O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
j WASHINGTON,0, C. 20555 e
- %...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETRDNPE FURER CORPORATION MUNICTFKE EEEETRTC AuTHORTTTDFUE0RGIA CTTFDFDAETUN' UEUNUTA-
-~
EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 00CKET NO. S0-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 27, 1987, Georgia Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
The letter documented an oral request uade by the l
licensee on January 26, 1987.
The requested change would modify the wording of Acuan Statement a.4 r' 1 3.7.1.2 to state that the provisions of TS 3.0.4 are not applicable to the
- adby Service Water System.
The Standby Service later System provides the normal source of cooling water to emergency diesel pnerator 18, which is a shared diesel capable of oroviding emergency power to either of the two Hatch units.
TS 3.7.1.2 provides that, in the event the Standby Service Water System is inoperable, power operation of Hatch Unit 2 is allowed to continue for a period of 60 days provided that i
cooling for the IB diesel generator is aligned to the Unit 1 plant servic' water system and operability of this cooling water source is verified in accordance with the Unit 1 TS.
On January 26, 1987, at the time of the licensee's oral request for a TS change, the Standby Service Water System was inoperable following the system's failure to meet rated flow requirements during surveillance testing on January 7, 1987.
The unit had been in operation since January 7, 1987 in accordance with Action Statement a.4 of TS 3.7.1.2.
On January 26, 1987, a forced outage of Unit 2 occur.ed, unrelated to the IB diesel generator or the Standby Service Water Systeli. The licensee was prevented from restarting the unit by TS 3.0.4 which prohibits entry into a different Operational Condition (e.g. reactor restart) while subject to the provisions of an action statement.
On January 26, 1987, the licensee requested emergency relief from the provisions of TS 3.0.4 as relates to TS 3.7.1.2.
The licensee's written request of January 27, 1987 both confirmed the request for emergency relief and further requested that the change be made permanent.
On January 30, 1987, the NRC issued Amendment No. 73 to the Hatch Unit 2 TS confirming that emergency relief had been granted on the night of January 26, 1987, in accordance with the licensee's request.
This Safety Evaluation addresses the licensee's further request to make the change permanent.
8808240229 880818T PDR ADOCK 05000366 G
PNU
2.0 EVALUATION Technical Specification 3.0.4 is a general prohibition against changing the nuclear unit's operational status at a time when the unit is operating under the prcvisions of an action statement.
Its intent is to prevent challenges to the plant at times when the safety systems are in a degraded mode.
Exceptions to the previsions of TS 3.0.4 are noted throughout the TS, but no such exception curre.iitly is stated for Action Statement a.4 of TS 3.7.1.2.
The Standby Service Water System is dedicated to supplying cooling water to diesel generator 18.
In the event the Standby Service Water System is inoperable, cooling water for the 18 diesel generator may be supplied by the Hatch Unit i service water system.
While operating in this mode, no single active failure at Hatch Unit I woulo cause loss of cooling wr.er to the IB diesel generator.
Thus, TS 3.7.1.2 for Hatch Unit 2 allows continuation of operotion for periods of up to 60 days when the Standby Service Water System is inoperable, provided the Unit I service water cooling source is verified to be operable.
Since there is an assured source of cooling water for diesel generator 1B even when the Standby Service Water System is inoperable, there is no reason to dpply the provisions of TS 3.0.4. Unit 2 may be started and operated safely with the 18 diesol aligned to the Unit I service water system.
In this regard, we note that exceptions to TS 3.0.4 are provided in Action Statements a.1 and d.2 of TS 3.7.1.2 which pertain to inoperability of the plant service water pumps.
Either of these conditions is more limiting from a design basis stonopoint than inoperability of the Standby Service Water System.
We conclude that Hatch Unit 2 may be safely started and operated while the Standby Service Water System is inoperable.
We therefore conclude that the TS change requested by the licensee, providing an exception to the requirements of TS 3.0.4 as pertains to Action Statenent a.4 of TS 3.7.1.2 should be granted.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes to the installation or ute of facility components located within the restricted area as defini-d in 10 CFR Nrt 20. The staff has determined that the amendu.ent involves no significant increase in the amounts, $nd 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 finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
Accordingly, the amendment meets the elig).ibility 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 assessant need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on March 25, 1987 (52 FR 9569), and consulted with the state oT GiBrgii. N5-public comments were received, and tie state of Georgia did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the contiderations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operatiun in the prorosed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Cimmission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be iriefca' to the c0mmon defense and security or to the health end safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Lawrence P. Crocker, P0il-3/0RP-T/II Dated:
August 18, 1988 l