ML20137R825
| ML20137R825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137R822 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-59335, NUDOCS 8602130431 | |
| Download: ML20137R825 (2) | |
Text
.
u 8104 UNITED STATES
[
~,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
wAssiNcTow.o. c.20sss r,,
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTO SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 61 TO FACILITY OPERATIN GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-366 INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 2, 1985, Georgia Power Company, et al,(the licen has proposed changes to Technical Specification 4.6.6.2.b.4 which will correct and clarify the present hydrogen recombiner heater testing fhepresentspecificationspecifiesavalueof100 megohms ohms) as the electrical resistance criterion for requirements, According to (i.e., 100 x 10 demonstrating heater integrity and recombiner operability. v The vendor recommended heater resistance to ground The proposed changes to 4.6.6.2.b.4 heater cabling.
specification is instead 1.0 megohm. clarify this fact by substituting th specifying the correct resistance value.
EVALUATION We have evaluated the proposed Technical Specification change request and find that it corrects and clarifies the testing requirements to make themCons more consistent with the vendor specifications.
proposed change acceptable.
kDj 1
31 860204 P
CK 050993 6 PD
r-E
. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This 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 ~ao 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the 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.
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 he inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: February 4, 1986 Principal Contributor:
J. Lane i
j 1