ML20237C453
| ML20237C453 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20237C445 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9808210184 | |
| Download: ML20237C453 (3) | |
Text
.
O tero p
h UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 30606 4001 o%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 212 TO FAC!LITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 l
AND AMENDMENT NO.153 TO FACILI fY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-5 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY. INC.. ET AL EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 I
DOCKET NOS. B0-321 AND 50-366 l
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 18,1997, as supplemented July 14,1998, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (Southern Nuclear), et al. (the licensee), proposed license amendments to change the Operating Licenses for the Edwin 1. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch),
Units 1 and 2. The proposed changes would modify or delete obsolete conditions from the Facility Operating Licenses (FOLs). The July 14,1998, submittal provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the December 18,1997, application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATION l
2.1 Hatch Unit 1 2.1.1 Proposed Change to License Condition 2.C.(2) l The Hatch Unit 1 Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) were implemented at mid-cycle with both units operating, and therefore, some of the surveillance requirements (SR) could not be l
performed. License Condition 2.C.(2) allowed these SRs to be performed at a later time. With the exception of SR 3.8.1.18, all of these SRs have now been performed. Therefore, the staff
[
finds the deletion of these SRs from License Condition 2.C.(2) to be acceptable. SR 3.8.1.18 l
has not been performed in the manner specified in the ITS and is not scheduled to be performed until the year 2003. Thus, the license condition for SR 3.3.1.13 is still needed.
i 2.1.2 Proposed Change to License Cond5bn 2.C.(5)
License Condition 2.C.(5) required the licensee to submit certain plans for inspectio" and/or modifications. These plans were submitted by letter dated May 31,1984, with additional information submitted oy letter dated September 26,1984. Therefore, the staff agrees that this license condition is obcolete and its deletion is acceptable.
i 9808210184 980818 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
PDR a
. 2.2 Htdch Unit 2 2.2.1 Proposed Change to Section 1.
The proposed change replaces the words " Atomic Energy Commission" with " Nuclear Regulatory Commission." The Hatch Unit 1 FOL was isued in 1974 by the Atomic Energy Commission, while the Hatch Ur.it 2 FOL was issued in 1978 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Therefore, the staff finds this change to be acceptable.
2.2.2 Proposed Change to License Condition 1.C.
This section granted four exemptions from certain requirements of the NRC's rules and.
regulations. Since the issuance of the FOL, the licensee has completed actions associated with two of the exemptions. Therefore, the staff agrees that these two exemptions are no longer needed and their deletion from the license condition is acceptable.
' 2.2.3 Proposed Change t'o License Condition 2.C.(1)
A portion of this license condition, as referenced and listed in Attachment 2 of the FOL, required the completion of certain items associated with the Main Steam isolation Valves. These items have since been completed; therefore, the staff finds the deletion of this portion of License Condition 2.C.(1) and Attachment 2, as well as references to Attachment 2, to be acceptable.
2.2.4 Proposed Change to License Condition 2.C.(2)
This proposed change is similar to the proposed change previously discussed in Section 2.1.1.
I However, SR 3.8.1.18 has already been' performed on Unit 2 as specified in the ITS.
Therefore, the staff finds the deletion from License Condition 2.C.(2) of SR 3.81.18 and all the i
other SRs to be acceptable.
2.2.5 Proposed Change to License Condition 2.C.(3)(f)
This license cordition required the licensee to perform the NRC-approved post-fuel-loading initial test program. This program has since been performed and inspected by the NRC.
Therefore, the 1,taff finds the deletion of this license condition to be acceptable.
2.2.6 Propcmd Change to License Condition 2.E.
i This license condition required the licensee to previde written notification to the NRC of any additional construction or operational activities that may significantly affect the environment.
This condition was superseded by requirements contained in the Environmental Protection Plan (Appendix B). Since these requirements are covr< red in Appendix B, deletion of this license 1
condition is acceptable.
)
l 4
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 4324 dated January 28,1998). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(r). 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: L. Olshan Date:
August 18, 1998 l