ML20141F126
| ML20141F126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141F117 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-59558, TAC-59559, TAC-59588, TAC-59589, NUDOCS 8601080633 | |
| Download: ML20141F126 (2) | |
Text
__
/
UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
t, j
wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENTS NOS.120 AND 59 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES NOS. DPR-57 AND NPF-5 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLCAR PLANT, UNITS NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKETS NOS. 50-321 AND 50-366
1.0 INTRODUCTION
AND EVALUATION By letter dated August 23, 1985, Georgia Power Company (GPC) requested changes to the Hatch Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to reflect the design modifications of the drywell pneumatic system.
GPC stated that the modifications have been completed for Hatch Unit 2 and will be implemented for Hatch Unit I during the Fall of 1985 refueling outage. The modification changes the original single drywell pneumatic header to two separate headers which penetrate the drywell at different locations.
Each penetration is provided with two isolation valves powered from two separate divisions. A third valve that has now become unnecessary has been removed from the Unit 2 header. The drywell pneumatic system is designated as an essential system and therefore would automatically isolate only in the case of a break within the system.
This design modification will assure a long-term pneumatic supply to some safety relief valves.
The proposed Technical Specification changes would modify the tables of containment isolation valves to add the two new isolation valves for each unit and to delete the valve that was removed from the Unit 2 header.
Based on our review of the design change and proposed supporting Technical Specification changes, we conclude that they enhance the safety of the plants, are in compliance with all regulations and appropriate NRC Standard Review Plan sections and are acceptable.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments involve 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 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.
%[
DO PDR P
+
.- The Commission 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 amendments meet 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 amendments.
3.0 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.
Dated: December 26, 1985 Principal Contributors:
F. Eltawila and D. Katze l
)