ML20138K485
| ML20138K485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138K481 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-59267, NUDOCS 8510300223 | |
| Download: ML20138K485 (1) | |
Text
Q Wtg UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
O
- p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.116 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-57 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-321 Evaluation Prior to issuance of Amendment No. 101, the first sentence of Section 4.5.D.2 read "When the HPCI is inoperable, the ADS actuation logic, the RCIC system, the RHR system LPCI mode and the CS system shall be demonstrated to be operable immediately." When TS page 3.5-7 was retyped for Amendment No. 101, the words "shall be demonstrated to be operable" were inadvertently deleted from this sentence.
By letter dated June 24, 1985, Georgia Power Company has requested that these words be reinstated. We find that these words are necessary to make the sentence intelligible and conclude that the proposed change is acceptable.
Environmental Consideration The amendment involves a change to a surveillance requirement. 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment 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 be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: October 15, 1985 Principal Contributor:
G. Rivenbark 8510300223 851015 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
.