ML20154B984

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Util 861024 Request for Revs to Tech Specs Concerning Surveillances & Limiting Conditions for Operation for Remote Shutdown Panels.Response Requested within 60 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML20154B984
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	05/11/1988
From:	Crocker L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mcdonald R GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
TAC-63570, TAC-63571, NUDOCS 8805170388
Download: ML20154B984 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

May 11, 1988 Docket Nos. 50-321 50-366 Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Executive Vice President Nuclear Operations Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, GA 30302

Subject:

Revision to TS Regarding Surveillances and LCOs for Remote Shutdown Panels - Hatch Units 1 and 2 (TACs 63570/63571)

By letter dated October 24, 1986, Georgia Power requested revisions to the Technical Specifications for Hatch Units 1 and 2 regarding surveillances and limiting conditions for operation for the remote shutdown panels. Staff review to date has revealed a number of questions regarding the submittal.

These are indicated in the enclosure.

In order that we may complete the review, it is requested that you respond to the enclosed questions within 60 days of receipt of this letter.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

[% S. Mof'k NUS , / c[<x T/Nwoj e r

'o I Lawrence P. Crocker, Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects I-II

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc: See next page bec: D.C. Ward, Region II DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC PDR LOCAL PDR PDII-3 Reading File S. Varga G. Lainas D. Matthews M. Rood L. Crocker HATCH PLANT FILE OGC-WF E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS (10)

DII-3 I 3 PDI f MRd

~

'iatthews l

05 k /88 keLCrocker:sw 05/g/88 05/g/88 8805170388 080511 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P PDR ,

w I

Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Edwin_I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, I Georgia Power Company Units Nos. I and 2 Cc: l G. F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 Mr. L. T. Gucwa Engineering Department Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302 Nuclear Safety and Compliance Manager Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 442 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Mr. Louis B. Long Southern Company Services, Inc.

P. O. Box 2625 Birmingham, Alabama 35202 ,

Resident inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Route 1. Box 725 Baxley, Georgia 31513 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900 '

4 Atlanta, Georiga 30323 Mr. Charles H. Badger Office of Planning and Budget Room 610 270 Washington Street, S.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Mr. J. Leonard Ledbetter, Comissioner Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington Street, N.W.

Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Chairman Appling County Comissioners County Courthouse Baxley, Georgia 31513

s ENCLOSURE Request for Additional Information Reference Georgia Power Company request of October 24, 1986 to revise the Technical Specifications for Hatch Unit 1 and 2 to include surveillance requirements and limiting conditions for operation for Remote Shutdown Panels.

4

1. Proposed Change 2 would provide operability and surveillance requirements for the Unit 1 Remote Shutdown Instrumentation by adding Table 3.2-15 to establish the operability requirements for this instrumentation.

Footnote C of the table states, "With one or more of the required remote shutdown monitoring instrumentation channels inoperable, either restore the inoperable channel (s) to operable status within 30 days or be in Hot Shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in Cold Shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />."

This action statement is not consistent with GE Standard Technical Specification 3.3.7.4 which requires the inoperable channel (s) to be restored within seven days or initiate plant shutdown.

Either change this note to conform to the intent of the GE STS or fully justify for deviating from the Standard Technical Specification by allowing instrumentation channels to be inoperable for up to 30 days before initiating plant shutdown.

2. Proposed Change 3 would add surveillance requirements and limiting conditions for operation for the Remote Shutdown Panels to Unit 1 and Unit 2 Technical Specifications by adding Technical Specification 3.5.L to the Unit 1 Technical Specifications and 3.7.9 to the Unit 2 Technical Specifications. Action Statement 1 of proposed Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.5.L and Action Statement 2 of proposed Unit 2 Technical Specification 3.7.9 state, "With the Remote Shutdown Panel inoperable, restore the panel to operable status within 30 days or be in at least hot shutdown within the next 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> and in cold shutdown within the following 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />".

The GE Standard Technical Specifications do not include a Technical Specification for the Remote Shutdown Panel. However, previous reviews by the NRC of similar Technical Specification amendment requests for Renote Shutdown Pe'1els have established that the panel should be restored to operable status within 7 days. This appears to be consistent with the GE Standard Technical Specification for Remote Shutdown Instrument-ation, i Either change these action statements to require restoration to operable status within 7 days or fully justify the basis for allowing the Remote Shutdown Panel to be inoperable for up to 30 days before initiating plant shutdown.

! 3. Proposed Unit 1 Technical Specification 3.5.L Action Statement 2 and Unit 2 Technical Specification 3.7.9 Action Statement B state, "With a component controlled from the Remote Shutdown Panel inoperable for reasons unrelated to the panel, the component's appropriate Limiting Condition for Operation Action Statement shall t'e followed."

2-The reviewer is concerned that a single component controlled from the Remote Shutdown Panel being inoperable may in essence make the entire panel inoperable if there is not a redundant component availaole which is also controlled from the panel.

Is there a single component controlled from either the Unit 1 or the Unit 2 Remote Shutdown Panel that does not have a redundant component also controlled from the same panel?

4 I

I

, -- - _ --_-_- - - .