ML20135G226
| ML20135G226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135G219 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-56050, TAC-56051, NUDOCS 8509180302 | |
| Download: ML20135G226 (2) | |
Text
--
\\
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
l 5
- f wasmooron, p. c. acess g
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS NOS.115 AND 56 TO FACILITY OPERATING j
LICEN5ES N05. DPR-57 AND MPF-5 i
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY i
0GLEMION j:
MUNICIPAL ELECINIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA j-CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 D0CKETS NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366 1
i Introduction i
i By letter dated October 1,1984, Georgia Power Company (the licensee) filed j
a request to amend Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 by deleting Environmental Technical Specification 3.1.2.2.1. Aerial Remote Sensing.
j Specification 3.1.2.2.1 requires that the Aerial Remote Sensing program 1
shall comunence at the time of initial commercial operation of Unit 2 and shall continue for at least 2 years. Plant communities of the site shall be j
aerially photographed to detect and assess the significance of damage, or lack thereof, related to deposition of cooling tower drift. Results of the i
monitoring conducted under this program shall be susunarfred, analyzed, interpreted, and reported in accordance with Section 5.6.1.
i j
Evaluation In Section 5.4.1 of the Final Environmental Statement for Hatch Unit 2, dated i
March 1978, it is stated that it is highly unlikely that drift effects will i
be observed. This prediction was based on the information from the first i
year of operation of Unit I and because of the high annual rainfall and the j
quality of the water used for cooling.
In evaluating the license amendment request, the following reports were examined:
1.
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant. Annual Environmental Surveillance Report for Calendar Year 1976 and for 1979, 1980 and 1981.
I
{
2.
Infrared aerial photographs.
The Annual Environmental Surveillance Reports for 1979, 1980 and 1981 state that no areas of dead or stress vegetation were observed on the infrared j
aerial photographs or found in the reconnaissance surveys. Examination of j
the serial photographs confirmed these statements.
i l
m
$W'Y W
P
(
$ i 1
The operation of the cooling towers for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 have not had a detrimental impact on the terrestrial l.
environment of the site and vicinity. Therefore, we have determined that i
deletion of Environmental Technical Specification 3.1.2.2.1. Aerial Remote j
Sensing, is acceptable.
l Environmental Considerations j
These amendments involve a change to a surveillance requirement. We have detemined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, j
and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released j
offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative l
occupational radiation exposure. The Comission 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 i
amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth j
in10CFR51.22(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 these amenenents.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the such i
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, 4
and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon j
defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Dated:
September 9, 1985 Principal Contributor:
G. LaRoche e
i L
i t
,