ML20133P914
| ML20133P914 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/05/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133P891 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-2.K.3.28, TASK-TM TAC-56047, TAC-56048, TAC-56097, TAC-56098, NUDOCS 8508140527 | |
| Download: ML20133P914 (2) | |
Text
e ig gp jo UNITED STATES g
y g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\.../
~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.111 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-57 AND AMENDMENT N0. 50 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 00CKETS NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 5, 1984, Georgia Power Company (the licensee) submitted an application for amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units Nos. I and 2.
The proposed amendments would modify the Technical Specifications (TSs) to add leak rate limits and test requirements for the automatic depressurization system.
2.0 RACKGROUND AND EVALUATION By letter dated September 2, 1983, the NRC staff issued its Safety Evaluation (SE) on the licensee's responses to NUREG-0737 Item II.K.3.28, concerning the qualif.ication of accumulators for automatic depressurization system (ADS) valves. This September 2, 1983, SE found the licensee's responses to be acceptable. The bases for this finding of acceptability included the licensee's commitment to prepare TSs requiring leak testing of all ADS accumulator systems at least once per operating cycle and the' licensee's stated allowable leak rate criteria.
By letter dated September 5, 1984, the licensee submitted proposed TSs to implement this leak rate testing frequency and allowable leak rate criteria. We have found that the proposed TSs are consistent with the earlier comitment and conclude that they are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S The amendments involve a change in surveillance requirements. We have determined that the amendments involve 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 Connission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no 0500140527 050005 PDR ADOCK 050003.'1 P
PDH
i significant hazards consideration and there has beer. no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusfon set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),i) environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need e prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
4.0 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 amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Cated:
August 5,1985 Principal Contributor: R. Wright i
l i
I L_