ML20247M497
| ML20247M497 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247M494 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906050054 | |
| Download: ML20247M497 (3) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _
'o>
UNITED STATES
~ ['
}-
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,..... j SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.162 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-57 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-321 INTRODUCTION By letter dated May 4,1984, as amended by letter dated September 12, 1984, and further amended by letter dated August 19, 1987, Georgia Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1.
The changes requested by the licensee were intended to bring the Unit 1 TS into conformance with staff guidance contained in a generic letter dated April 10, 1980. The generic letter requested licensees to (1) expand the definition of OPERABLE in existing TS to include the operability of support equipment necessary for the system, subsystem, train, component or cevice to perform its function; and (2) add provisions to the TS to assure that no set of equipment outages would be allowed to persist that would result in the facility being in an unprotected condition because of violation of the single failure criterion for safety systems.
Staff review indicated that all of the changes recuested by the licensee were not necessary to achieve conformance to the generic letter. These matters were discussed with ifcensce representatives on several occasions during early 1989 and, on May 16, IB69, the licensee further amended the proposed chenges such that only the definition of OPERABLE would be affected.
DISCUSSION An event ot. curring in 1979, at a different licensee's f t.cility reported in IE Information Notice No. 79-M, indicated that there might be some misunderstanding regarding una of the teru OPERABLE. As a follow-up, in an April 10, 1980 letter to all power reactor licensees, the NRC clarified the meaning of the term OPERABLE. That letter included an expanded definition of the term OPERABLE and operability-related model TS Sections 3.0.3 and 3.0.5, and requested licensees to amend their plant TS to incorporate the requirements of the model specifications.
8906050054 890525 PDR ADOCK 05000321 P
. 1
~
In response to the April 10, 1980 generic letter, the licensee requested changes to both the Hatch Unit I and Unit 2 TS. Amendment No. 49 to the Unit 2 license, issued on July 16, 1985, approved the requested changes to bring the Unit 2 TS into conformance with the April 10, 1980 letter. These changes were relatively straightforward since the Unit 2 TS are based upon the NRC's Standard Technical Specifications (STS). However, the changes needed for the Unit 1 TS appeared to be considerably more complicated since the Unit 1 TS are in an earlier, custom format, not based upon the STS.
For Unit 1, TS changes were requested by the licensee on May 4,1984, as amended by letters of September 12, 1984 and August 17, 1987. During staff review of the requested changes, it became apparent that the existing Hatch Unit 1 TS contain requirements that are at least as restrictive as those in Sections 3.0.3 and 3.0.5 of the mocel TS. Thus, changes to the Unit 1 TS are not required to incorporate the requirements of Sections 3.0.3 and 3.0.5 of the model TS.
These matters were discussed with representatives of the licensee during early 1989 and, on May 16, 1989, the licensee submitted a further revision to its change request.
The May 16, 1989 revision withdrew the request for changes to incorporate the requirements intended by Sections 3.0.3 and 3.0.5 of the model TS, and revised the proposed definition of OPERABLE such that it would be identical to the definition of OPERABLE-0PERABILITY in the Hatch Unit 2 TS. The Unit 2 definition is identical to the definition requested by the staff in the April 10, 1980 generic letter.
The proposed Hatch I definition of OPERABLE thus is in conformance with the definition requested by the generic letter and is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, l
and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and thet there is nn 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 firding. Accordingly, the amendment I
meets the eligibility criteria for categorical uchsion set forth in 10 CFP 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 20 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendnent involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on October 7,1987 (52 FR 37545), and consulted with the state of Georgia. No public comments were received, and the state of Georgia did not have any comments.
l
(
, 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 regul6tions, 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.
Principal Contributors: David Langford, PDI-1/SRP-I/II Lawrence P. Crocker, PDII-3/DRP-I/II Dated:
May 25, 1989 I
_ - - - - - - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _