ML20080J116

Application to Amend Licenses DPR-57 & NPF-5,changing Tech Specs to Reflect Mods to Scram Discharge Sys,As Required by NRC

ML20080J116
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch
Issue date:	09/19/1983
From:	Head G GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20080J119	List: ML20080J116 ML20080J137
References
NED-83-480, TAC-42218, TAC-42219, TAC-43684, TAC-43685, TAC-53327, TAC-53328, NUDOCS 8309260199
Download: ML20080J116 (4)

Text

f e . r,. < ;a h , , ra :p ,

TG F4 r 1 /. . ;,

m.mn, ,,n

• ; - - . , :;t e :, ,at y, i Aq r.

p ,< *

,- g% ;

') G

.i n , 't {

G.F. Head p

, ('* September 19, 1983 NED-83-480 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washirgton, D. C. 20555 NRC DOCKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 EIMIN I. HA'ICH NIELEAR PLANT UNI'IS 1 AND 2 SCRAM DISCIWEE SYSTEM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, as required by 10 CFR 50.59(c) (1), Georgia Power Company hereby proposes charges to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Operating Licenses DPR-57 and NPF 5) .

%e proposed changes are required by your letter of June 24, 1983, and result from modifications to the scram discharge system. The modifications and changes to the Technical Specifications ('rs) conform to criteria developed by the BWR Owners Group and endorsed by NRC's Generic Safety Evaluation Report dated December 1,1980. These changes are required to be inplemented by December 31, 1983.

The requested changes are as follows:

1 1, Add Limiting Condition for Operation (IDO) , Surveillance Requirements, and Bases for scram discharge volume (SIN) vent and drain valve operability. (Units 1 and 2) l The proposed changes are based on model TS supplied in your letter of

! June 24, 1983. A "12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> to Hot Shutdown" ICO has been included for l one or more valves inoperable, although none was provided in t.he model TS. his ICO was chosen based on the LOO for model TS 3.1.3.1, Control Rod Operability.

2) Add ICO and Surveillance Requirements for SIN high water level rod block instrumentation. (Unit 1)

In accordance with our letter of October 1, 1981, TS similar to those for Unit 2 are provided.

t g M B309260199 830919 #

PDR ADOCK 05000321 3 P PDR d Mhta. 400* ' #

k Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing September 19, 1983 Page 2

3) Add new diverse SDV high water level scram instrumentation to Reactor Protection System instrument tables. (Units 1 and 2)

%e model TS did not reflect the addition of this instrumentation.

Consequently, the new instruments have been given the same operability requirements as the original level switches. We original instruments' IID has likewise been applied to the new instruments. However, we believe that some relief from the present ICO (6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> to Hot Shutdown) should be provided since the number of trip systems has been doubled.

We will discuss this subject with the NRC Hatch Licensing Project Manager during the review of this subnittal. Additionally, for Unit 1, the surveillance fregtency for the original level switches has been changed frczn quarterly to monthly to correspond to the frequency for the new instruments and the Unit 2 instruments.

%e Plant Review Board and Safety Review Board have reviewed the proposed charges and determined that they do not constitute an unreviewed safety question. Each of these charges reflects a more conservative requirement. Operability requirements, Loos and surveillances are beiry provided for equipnent which previously had none. New diverse and redundant instrumentation is being added. Previously analyzed accident probabilities and consequences will not be increased, and should be decreased, by this change. No new modes of operation are involved. Margins of safety, as defined in the TS, will not be reduced.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.92, we have determined that these changes do not constitute a significant hazard. Each of the charges outlined in 1, 2 and 3 above results in no significant increase to accident probabilities or consequences. No new accidents are created. We margin of safety is not significantly decreased. Each of the changes is therefore within acceptance criteria. Each charge is consistent with Example (ii) of " Amendments hat are Considered Not Likely to Involve Significant Hazards Considerations" as described in the Fhleral Register, Vol. 48, No. 67, Page 14870.

Enclosed is a determination of amendment class and appropriate payment.

k<

Mr. John F. Stolz, Chief, Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing Septernber 19, 1983 Page 3 G. F. Head states that he is Vice President of Georgia Power Company and is authorized to execute this oath on behalf of Georgia Power Company, and tlat to the best of his knowledge and belief the facts set forth in this letter are true.

GB0!GIA POWER COMPANY By:

k @.

G. F. Head Sworn to and s scribed before me this 19th day of September, 1983.

j u

0 g ,

[ N5taty Pujic Notary Pouie, Georgin,: rate at targe RE/rb My comauton tmiru uny:s, nas xc: H. C. Nix, Jr.

Senior Resident Inspector J. P. O'Reilly, (NBC-Region II) i

{

ATTACHENT 1 NRC 00CKETS 50-321, 50-366 OPERATING LICENSES DPR-57, NPF-5 l EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 1 SCRAM DISCHARGE SYSTEM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12, Georgia Power Company has evaluated the attached proposed amendment to Operating Licenses DPR-57 and NPF-5 and has determined that:

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

b. The proposed amendment does not contain several complex issues, does not involve ACRS review, and does not require an environmental impact statement;

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

d. The proposed amendment does involve a single safety issue, namely, addition of WC required equipment and additional limitations,

e. The proposed amendment is therefore a Class III amendment for one unit and a Class I amendment for the other unit.

l l

l t

l

- - . . - - ..- . _ - - . .