ML20066G010

Application for Amend to License NPF-5,correcting Tech Spec 3/4.5.4 Re ECCS Suppression Chamber

ML20066G010
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	11/10/1982
From:	Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20066G012	List: ML20066G010 ML20066G014
References
TAC-49263, NUDOCS 8211190263
Download: ML20066G010 (4)

Text

, , Georgta Power Cctrpany 333 Pecmmt Avenue Attanta. Georgia 30308 Teiophone 404 526 7020 Maeg Address Post Office Bcx 4545 Atlanta, Gmrg:a 30302 Georgia Power J. T. Beckham, Jr. the southern e:ectre system Vce President and General Manager nuciear Generat' " November 10, 1982 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CORRECTION Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90 Georgia Power Company (GPC) hereby proposes an amendment to the Edwin I. Hatch Unit 2 Technical Specifications (Appendix A to the Operating License). This change would correct an erroneous reference contained in Section 3.5.4.b.2.

Currently the Unit 2 Technical Specifications reference Section 3.9.8 as containing limits on refueling water level; in fact, this section actually regulates crane travel over the spent fuel pool. The correct reference would be to Section 3.9.10, " Water Level-Spent Fuel Pool," which this change would accomplish.

Application of these proposed Technical Specification changes would in no way constitute on unreviewed safety question as determined by the Plant Review Board and the Safety Review Board. The probability of occurrence and the consequences of an accident or malfunction of safety-related equipment would not be increased above those analyzed in the FSAR because this change would be purely administrative and would have no effect with regards to the plant safety analysis. The possibility of an accident or malfunction of a different type than analyzed in the FSAR would not result from this change because no new modes of either operation or f ailure would be created. The margin of safety as defined in Technical Specifications would not be reduced due to this change because this correction would be administrative only in nature, and would end the possibility of confusion arising from the preseat incorrect reference in Section 3.5.4.b.2. r DYo M e 8211190263 821110

~ djeleb. poa .

PDR ADOCK 05000366 p PDR

I Georgia Power A Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission November 10, 1982 Page Two Instructions for incorporation of these changes along with copies of affected Technical Specification pages are enclosed.

Included with this proposal is a determination of amendment class. We have determined this to be one Class II amendment, and have enclosed the appropriate payment.

J. T. Beckham, Jr. states that he is Vice President of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Company, and that to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY By: '

J. T. Beckham, Jr.

Sworn,to and subscribed before me this 10th day of November, 1982

[L ~ _-

ya g ,7, uY?

yug3g

• ***'8'a. state at Large

". ..,,n

>, e-- n m, w CBS/mb Enclosures xc: H. C. Nix J. P. O'Reilly (NRC-Region II) i Senior Resident Inspector l

l on, g .- -

r ATTACHMENT 1 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EDWIN I.' HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CORRECTION The proposed changes to Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Operating License NPF-5) would be incorporated as follows:

Remove Page Insert Page 3/4 5-9 r. 3/4 5-9 9

f-

'f e

t i

8

ATTACHMENT 2 NRC DOCKET 50-366 OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CORRECTION Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.22, Georgia Power Company has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating License NPF-5 and has. determined "that:

a. The proposed amendment does not require evaluation of a new Safety Analysis Report and rewrite of the facility license;

b. The proposed amendment does not require evaluation of several complex issues, involve ACRS review, or require an environmental impact statement; l,

c. The proposed amendment does not involve a complex issue or more than one environmental or safety issue;

d. The proposed amendment does not involve a single environmental or safety issue;

e. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature, in that it corrects an erroneous reference to a Technical Specification section;

f. The proposed amendment is therefore a Class II amendment.

I l

l t