ML20132D039
| ML20132D039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132D036 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-13278, NUDOCS 8507310159 | |
| Download: ML20132D039 (2) | |
Text
.
/
UNITED STATES 8
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 49 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-366 1.
EVALUATION On April 10, 1980, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) issued a generic letter to all Power Reactor Licensees which clarified the term OPERABLE and identified portions of the Model Technical Specifications (MTS) which are recommended to assure that safety systems remain OPERABLE within the limits of the single failure criterion (Reference 1).
In that letter, the NRC requested that Licensees review their Technical Specifications (TSs) and submit such proposed charges as were necessary to incorporate the requirements of the MTS.
On February 5,1981, Georgia Power responded to the generic letter, proposing a revision to the Hatch 2 TS Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) which would eliminate possible confusion over the definition of operability (Reference 3). Our contractor, EG8G Idaho, Inc., has reviewed the existing Hatch 2 TS definition of the term OPERABLE and the proposed amendment to the TSs and prepared the enclosed report
- dated January 1984 which provides an evaluation of the Hatch 2 definition and existing and proposed LCOs for conformance to the criteria established by the NRC.
We have reviewed the EG8G report and agree with its findings.
Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed changes are acceptable.
2.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part
- 20. We have 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the
- Although the report contains a legend that this is "an informal report intended for use as a preliminary working document," the report in fact represents EG&G's final evaluation of this amendment request for NRC. These statements will be clarified in reports issued in the near future.
8507310159 850716 PDR ADOCK 05000366 P
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
3.
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 the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
July 16,1985 Principal Contributor: George Rivenbark
Enclosure:
EG&G Report G
l l
[
l f