ML20212A457
| ML20212A457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212A434 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-62744, NUDOCS 8703030355 | |
| Download: ML20212A457 (2) | |
Text
_ __
,,,,s UNITEJ STATES E
8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 To*****e SAFETY EVALUATI0ff BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 74 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPAllY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUtilCIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GE0P.GIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN 1. HATCH fiUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT h0. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 19, 1986, Georgia Power Company (GPC) submitted a request for revision of the Technical Specifications, Appendix A to Facility Operating License NPF-5, for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
The proposed revision would incorporate changes to the dumy load profiles for station battery testing.
2.0 EVALUATION In order to demonstrate the operability of the DC power system, Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Technical Specifications require the performance of a test to demonstrate that the station batteries are capable of supplying emergency loads for specified time periods. Two options are available for performance of this test. The first option requires hookup of the actual emergency loads for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />. The second option specifies a dummy load profile (current versus time) which may be used to demonstrate battery operability. A machine capable of simulating the actual loads is used for performance of the dummy load profile option.
The actual emergency load option has been used for performance of the subject surveillance at Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2.
The dumny load profile option has not been used because the profiles had not been updated to reflect the modifications to the plant which affect the load profile provided in the Technical Specifications.
The proposed revision to the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Technical Specifications, contained in GPC's August 19, 1986 letter, would update the dummy load profiles for station battery testing provided in the Technical Specifications.
The load profile (for each battery) has been updated to reflect the as built plant.
Implementation of this change will allow the use of either option for the performance of battery surveillance.
07030303DD 07022D PDit ADOCK 05000366 p
PDit
~.
g P
-S' The staff has found that the above proposed changes are consistent with the guidelines contained in IEEE Standard 450, " Recommended Practice for Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of Large Storage Batteries for Generating Stations and Substations," as augmented by Regulatory Guide 1.129, Rev.1, " Maintenance, Testing and Replacement of Large Lead j
Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants."
Based on the above, the staff has concluded that the proposed changes to the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 Technical Specifications for new
/
battery load testing profiles are consistent with the Standard Review Plan, Section 8.3.2 acceptance criteria and, therefore, the proposed changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use l
of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance cf the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) htere is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
- 8. Marcus Dated:
February 25, 1987