[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54708-54710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26422]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54709]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-366]
Georgia Power Company, et al.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit
2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering the issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, to Facility Operating License No. NPF-5,
issued to Georgia Power Company, et al. (GPC or the licensee), for
operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, located in
Appling County, Georgia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Sections III.A.5(b)(1), III.A.5(b)(2), III.B.3, III.C.2(a),
and III.C.3, for the Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, in conjunction with
License Amendment No. 132 issued March 17, 1994, which permitted an
increase in the allowable main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leak rate
from 11.5 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) for any one MSIV to 100
scfh for any one MSIV, with a total maximum leak rate of 250 scfh
through all four steam lines and the deletion of the leakage control
system (LCS).
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, Sections II.H.4 and III.C.2 require
leak rate testing of the MSIVs at the calculated peak containment
pressure related to the design-basis accident, and Section III.A.5,
III.B.3 and III.C.3 requires that the measured MSIV leak rates be
included in the combined leak rate test results. The proposed exemption
allows the exclusion of the measured MSIV leakage from the combined
test results. The increase of the MSIV leak rate does not affect a
previously approved exemption, stated in the Technical Specifications
(TS), which allows the MSIV leak rate testing at a reduced pressure.
The proposed action for the exemption regarding leakage is in
accordance with the licensee's letter dated June 20, 1995. The proposed
action for the exemption from testing at accident pressure is based on
the Commission's own initiative to account for a previously granted
exemption as stated in the Hatch Unit 2 TS.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The exemption from the leakage acceptance criteria of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J, is needed because the MSIV leakage rate is accounted
for separately in the radiological site analysis. The exemption from
the pressure requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, is needed
because the design of the MSIVs is such that the test pressure is
applied between two MSIVs in the same line and testing in the reverse
direction for one of the MSIVs tends to unseat the valve disc and would
result in a meaningless test.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
related to the granting of an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix
J, Sections III.A.5(b)(1), III.A.5(b)(2), III.B.3, and III.C.3,
proposed by the licensee, and concludes that the proposed actions will
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes
are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released
offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The proposed
action for the exemption from testing at accident pressure, as required
by Section III.C.2 of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, is based on the
Commission's own initiative to account for a previously granted
exemption as stated in the Hatch Unit 2 TS, and the Commission
concludes that the action will not increase the probabilty or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure.
The MSIV leakage, along with the containment leakage is used to
calculate the maximum radiological consequences of a design-basis
accident. Section 15.1.39 of the Hatch Final Safety Analysis Report
(FSAR) indicates that standard and conservative assumptions have been
used to calculate the offsite and control room doses, including the
doses due to MSIV leakage, which could potentially result from a
postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). Further, the technical
support center, control room, and offsite doses resulting from a
postulated LOCA have recently been recalculated using currently
accepted assumptions and methods. The doses at the site boundary and
the doses that could be received by personnel in the technical support
center and control room due to MSIV leakage were calculated
independently of all other types of containment leakage. These analyses
have demonstrated that the total leakage rate of 250 scfh results in
dose exposures for the control room and offsite that remain within the
limits of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100, as discussed in License
Amendment No. 132.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
actions involve features located entirely within the restricted area as
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant
effluents and have no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed actions. Denial of the application
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alterative action
are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Hatch Nuclear Plant.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 28, 1995, the
staff consulted with the Georgia State official, James L. Setser of the
Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed actions will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed actions.
For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the
licensee's letter dated June 20, 1995, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City
Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
[[Page 54710]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor Nerses,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-26422 Filed 10-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
