ML20092J633
| ML20092J633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092J630 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-48120, NUDOCS 8406260547 | |
| Download: ML20092J633 (2) | |
Text
.-
e=
g*
%g*
- 3i UNITED STATES j A[/.ZL[ ^$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 wp gvj
+....
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.100 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-57 AND AMENDMENT N0.37 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS NOS. 1 & 2 DOCKET 5 N05. 50-321 AND 50-366 LIMITING CONDITIni FOR OPERATION - LOSS OF SECONDARY CONTAINMENT INTEGRITY In a letter from J. Stolz to J. T. Beckham, Jr., dated April 8,1982, the staff requested Georgia Power Company (the licensee) to submit a proposed change to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Hatch Unit 1. 'The objective would be to establish a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) for the loss of secondary containment integrity at Hatch, Unit 1.
The licensee responded-to the staff's request in a letter dated June 11, 1982, which included additional proposed changes to the TS clarifying the operability requirements for the Standby Gas Treatment System (SBGTS).
We have reviewed the proposed changes and find them to be consistent with the Mark I Standard Technical Specifications regarding secondary containments.
The' proposed changes establish an acceptable LC0 for situations when secondary containment integrity is violated and more clearly defines the LC0 when one of the SBGTS trains in Hatch, Unit 1 is inoperable. We find that the licensee's proposed changes enhance safe operation of the plant by establishing a more definitive and restrictive LCO when secondary containment integrity is violated, consistent with the provisions of the Standard Technical Specifications. Also, clarification of the operability requirements for the SBGTS provides greater assurance that these LC0's will be interpreted correctly. On these bases, we conclude that the licensee's proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for Hatch, Unit 1 as discussed above are acceptable.
i FAILED TYPE B AND C TEST REPORTING REQUIREMENTS l
By letter dated March 10, 1982, the licensee requested that the Hatch l
Unit I and 2 TS related to reporting requirements for failed Type B and C i
tests be modified to allow a single report to be submitted within thirty days of the end of the outage during which the tests are conducted.
We have determined that this change is consistent with the reporting requirements for failed Type B and C leak tests as specified in Appendix J l
8406260547 840620 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
~
s to 10 CFR Part 50 We have further determined that the proposed change does not constitute a significant safety consideration since it is an administrative change which does not affect plant design or operation.
On this basis, we conclude that the licensee's proposed char.ge to the Technical Specifications regarding reporting requirements for failed Type B and C leak tests at Hatch, Units 1 and 2 is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area. We have determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in-the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupation radiation exposure. The Conmission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly these amendments meet the eligibility 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 assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there 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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: June 20, 1984 i
l 1
Principal Contributors:
R. Hall i
L i