[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53473-53478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26559]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-57 and NPF-5 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,
for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
located in Appling County, Georgia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
By letter dated August 8, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated
March 9, May 6, July 6, July 31, September 4, and September 11, 1998,
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC/the licensee), requested
amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NFP-5 for the
operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Plant Hatch), Units 1
and 2, located on the Altamaha River in Appling County, approximately
11 miles north of Baxley, Georgia. On April 17, 1997, information
concerning the SNC dose assessment for Plant Hatch was submitted in
advance of the application for license amendments.
SNC has requested an increase in the maximum thermal power (MWt)
from 2558 MWt to 2763 MWt, which represents a power increase of 8
percent. This is considered an extended power uprate because it follows
a 5 percent power uprate from the original licensing basis of 2436 MWt
to 2558 MWt, which was implemented following the Unit 2 fall 1995
outage and the Unit 1 spring 1996 outage.
The Need for the Proposed Action
SNC forecasts the increase in electrical generation to allow
prudent planning for adding power capacity. Large base load plants are
not required for several years. However, expected increases in customer
demand will be met by either increasing the number of combustion
turbines or purchasing electrical power from other sources. The
proposed extended power uprate will provide increased reactor power,
thus adding an additional 80 to 120 MW of reliable electrical
generating capacity to the grid without major hardware modifications to
the plant and will displace the need for two 50-megawatts electric gas
turbines. Because of design and safety margins in the plant equipment,
the proposed extended power uprate can be accomplished with relatively
few modifications. Also, because Plant Hatch is already in operation,
impacts of construction can be avoided. The cost of adding this nuclear
generating capacity roughly equals the cost of constructing combustion
turbines; however, the fuel cost of nuclear power is approximately one-
tenth that of natural gas and the additional energy is expected to be
produced for less than 1 cent per kilowatt hour. Furthermore, unlike
fossil fuel plants, Plant Hatch does not routinely emit sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that
contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
At the time of the issuance of the operating licenses for Plant
Hatch, the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license
is encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final
Environmental Statement (FES), which was issued in March 1978. The
original operating licenses for both Plant Hatch units allowed a
maximum reactor power level of 2436 MWt. Plant Hatch has already
received a 5 percent power uprate for each unit from the original
licensing bases of 2436 MWt to 2558 MWt, which were implemented
following the Unit 2 fall 1995 outage and the Unit 1 spring
[[Page 53474]]
1996 outage. An Environmental Assessment associated with the power
uprate was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 1995 (60 FR
38593). SNC has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting the
proposed extended power uprate action and provided a summary of its
conclusions concerning both the radiological and nonradiological
environmental impacts of the proposed action. Based on its independent
analyses and the evaluation performed by the licensee, the staff
concludes that the environmental impacts of the extended power uprate
are well bounded or encompassed by previously evaluated environmental
impacts and criteria established by the staff in the FES. Extended
power uprate can be implemented at Plant Hatch without making extensive
changes to plant systems that directly or indirectly interface with the
environment. No changes to State permits are required. A summary of the
nonradiological and radiological effects on the environment that may
result from the proposed amendments is provided herein.
Nonradiological Impacts
Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts on Land Use: The proposed extended power uprate will not
modify the land use at the site, as described in the FES. Neither
construction of new facilities nor the modification of existing
facilities, including buildings, access roads, parking facilities,
laydown areas, and onsite transmission and distribution equipment,
including power line rights-of-way, is needed to support the uprate or
operation after uprate. Extended power uprate will not significantly
affect material storage, including chemicals, fuels, and other
materials stored in aboveground and/or underground storage.
Cooling Tower Impacts: In the FES, the staff concluded that
operation of the Plant Hatch cooling towers would not be detrimental to
either the land or the vegetation in the vicinity of the plant.
Monitoring programs, including low altitude true and false color
photography, have not revealed any negative effects attributable to
salt deposition from cooling tower drift resulting from station
operation to date. The proposed extended power uprate will not increase
the circulating water flow; therefore, no increase in cooling tower
drift is expected.
The FES states that the climate at the site consists of mild, short
winters (average monthly minimum temperature of approximately 52
deg.F); therefore, icing conditions are rare and the probability of
icing on nearby roads is extremely low. Because circulating water flow
will not increase as a result of extended power uprate, cooling tower
drift will not increase and the impact of icing on trees, vegetation,
and roads will not increase. Therefore, the conclusions of the FES
relative to icing remain valid for the proposed extended power uprate.
A small increase in fogging potential due to operation of cooling
towers was noted in the FES but was determined to be insignificant. The
slight increase in heat load on the cooling towers from the proposed
extended power uprate is expected to result in a very slight increase
in the potential for fogging. However, this incremental increase is
expected to be insignificant and will not change the conclusions in the
FES.
After considering the small increase in heat load on the cooling
towers, the staff concludes that the incremental effects of fog
attributable to the proposed extended power uprate will be negligible
and will continue to be bounded by the FES. Other cooling tower
impacts, such as drift and icing, are not expected to change as a
result of the proposed extended power uprate.
Transmission Facility Impacts: No changes in existing transmission
line design and operation will result from the proposed extended power
uprate. No new requirements or changes to onsite transmission
equipment, operating transmission voltages, or offsite power systems
will result from implementation of the proposed extended power uprate.
The rise in generator output associated with extended power uprate
will produce a slight current and electromagnetic field (EMF) increase
in the onsite transmission line between the main generator and the
plant substation. The line is located entirely within the fenced,
licensee-controlled boundary of the plant, and neither members of the
public nor wildlife would be expected to be affected. Exposure to EMFs
from the offsite transmission system is not expected to increase
significantly and any such slight increases are not expected to change
the staff's conclusion in the FES that there are no significant
biological effects attributable to EMFs from high voltage transmission
lines associated with Plant Hatch.
Because Plant Hatch transmission lines are designed and constructed
in accordance with applicable shock prevention provisions of the
National Electric Safety Code, the slight increase in current
attributable to the proposed extended power uprate is not expected to
change the staff's conclusions in the FES that adequate protection is
provided against hazards from electrical shock.
Impacts on Terrestrial Biota: The proposed extended power uprate
will not change the land use as evaluated in the FES and will not
disturb the habitat of any terrestrial plant or animal species. The
conclusions reached by the staff in the FES relative to impact on
terrestrial ecology, including endangered and threatened plant and
animal species, remain valid for the proposed extended power uprate.
Aquatic Impacts
Surface Water: Extended power uprate is accomplished by increasing
the heat output of the reactor, thereby increasing steam flow to the
turbine, for which increased feedwater flow is needed. For the proposed
extended power uprate, the 22,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (50 cubic
feet per second) average withdrawal rate for one unit of Plant Hatch
assessed in the FES will remain unchanged. The increase in steam flow
resulting from the extended power uprate does increase the duty on the
main condenser and the resulting slight increase in evaporation from
the cooling towers will be balanced by a decrease in blowdown discharge
such that no increase in withdrawal is anticipated.
Groundwater: In the FES, the staff concluded that a minimal
quantity of groundwater (327 gpm, 0.471 million gallons per day (gpd))
will be withdrawn from two wells for normal two-unit operation and this
amount was not likely to significantly impact the regional aquifer.
Groundwater use at Plant Hatch is governed by a permit issued by the
Environmental Protection Division of the State of Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, which authorizes withdrawal of 1.1 million gpd
monthly average, and 0.550 million gpd annual average. Although the
values allowed by the groundwater withdrawal permit are somewhat
greater than the values evaluated in the FES, the typical groundwater
withdrawal rate for two-unit operation is 0.167 million gpd (116 gpm),
with a maximum value of 0.281 million gpd (195 gpm). The proposed
extended power uprate will not result in a significant increase in the
use of groundwater resources and will not significantly reduce the
margin to limits contained in the permit issued by the State. The
conclusions reached by the staff in the FES relative to groundwater use
remain valid for the proposed extended power uprate.
Intake Impacts: The impacts of operation of the river water intakes
include impingement of fish on the traveling screens at the intake
structure
[[Page 53475]]
and entrainment of phytoplankton, periphyton, drifting
macroinvertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae. The losses of impinged
and entrained organisms were assessed in the FES and were judged to be
insignificant, compared to overall populations in the Altamaha River.
Due to an increase in heat load on the cooling towers as a result of
extended power uprate, evaporative losses will increase. In order to
compensate for the increase in evaporative losses, cooling tower makeup
will be increased slightly and cooling tower blowdown will be decreased
by approximately 626 gpm. The additional incremental increase in makeup
is considered insignificant and will not significantly increase the
impacts of impingement and entrainment on aquatic biota in the Altamaha
River beyond those addressed in the FES.
Discharge Impacts: Impacts of station operation resulting from the
plant discharges include thermal and physical effects of cooling tower
basin blowdown and the effects of chemical discharges from serial-
numbered outfalls controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The increased thermal discharges
resulting from the proposed extended power uprate are expected to have
the effect of increasing the discharge temperature of cooling water
blowdown such that the temperature increase in the Altamaha River after
mixing would be less than 0.1 deg.F.
As described above, cooling tower blowdown is expected to decrease
by 626 gpm; therefore, the extended power uprate will not result in
increased impacts due to scour on aquatic macrobenthic organisms or to
increase turbidity in the Altamaha River in the vicinity of the plant
discharge.
Chemical usage and subsequent discharge to the environment are not
expected to change significantly as a result of implementing the
proposed extended power uprate. Cycles of concentration at which the
cooling towers operate will not change and no changes in the cooling
tower chemistry program will result from the extended power uprate.
Finally, no changes to the sanitary waste system or to the parameters
regulated by the NPDES permit are needed to accomplish the extended
power uprate. Therefore, the conclusions in the FES regarding chemical
discharges remain valid.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Physical Impacts: The staff has considered the potential for direct
physical impacts resulting from the proposed extended power uprate. The
proposed extended power uprate will be accomplished primarily by
changes in station operation, resulting in very few modifications to
the station facility. These limited modifications can be accomplished
without physical changes to transmission corridors, access roads, other
offsite facilities, or additional project-related transportation of
goods or materials. Therefore, no significant additional construction
disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration, or
shock from blasting are expected and the conclusions in the FES remain
valid.
Social and Economic Impacts: The staff has reviewed information
provided by the licensee regarding socioeconomic impacts. SNC is a
major employer in the community and the largest single contributor to
the local tax base. SNC personnel also contribute to the tax base by
payment of sales and property tax and many are involved in volunteer
work within the community. The proposed extended power uprate will not
significantly affect the size of the Plant Hatch workforce and will not
have a material effect upon the labor force required for future
outages. Because the plant modifications needed to implement the
extended power uprate will be minor, any increase in sales tax and
additional revenue to local and national business will be negligible
relative to the large tax revenues generated by Plant Hatch. It is
expected that improving the economic performance of Plant Hatch through
cost reductions and lower total bus bar costs per kWh will enhance the
value of Plant Hatch as a generating asset and lower the probability of
early plant retirement. Early plant retirement would have a significant
negative impact upon the local economy and the community as a whole.
The ability of the local economy to provide substitute tax revenues and
similar employment opportunities for SNC employees is limited and
serious reductions in public services, employment, income, business
revenues, and property values could result from early plant retirement,
although these reductions could be mitigated by decommissioning
activities in the short-term.
The staff has also evaluated the environmental impact of the
proposed extended power uprate on aesthetic resources and lands with
historical or archaeological significance and concludes that the
proposed action will not change aesthetic resources or affect lands
with historical or archeological significance.
Summary
In summary, the proposed extended power uprate will not result in a
significant change in nonradiological plant effluents or terrestrial or
socioeconomic impacts and will have no other nonradiological
environmental impact.
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Waste Treatment
Plant Hatch uses waste treatment systems designed to collect,
process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might
contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that
discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20 and Appendix I to Part 50.
These radioactive waste treatment systems are discussed in the FES. The
proposed extended power uprate will not affect the environmental
monitoring of any of these waste streams or the radiological monitoring
requirements contained in licensing basis documents. The proposed
extended power uprate does not introduce any new or different
radiological release pathways and does not increase the probability of
an operator error or equipment malfunction that would result in an
uncontrolled radioactive release.
Gaseous Radioactive Waste
During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems
process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the
site environs, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens,
particulates, and tritium, such that routine offsite releases from
station operation are below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I
to Part 50 (10 CFR Part 20 includes the requirements of 40 CFR Part
190). The gaseous waste management systems include the offgas system
and various building ventilation systems. Assuming noble gas generation
rates and the radioactivity contribution from halogens, particulates,
and tritium are approximately proportional to the power increase (8
percent), a small increase in gaseous effluents due to extended power
uprate will occur. The staff has evaluated information provided by the
licensee and concludes that the estimated dose values will still be
below Appendix I requirements after the extended power uprate and the
dose impact will be a small increase (less than 8 percent) for the
gaseous pathway compared to the present analysis of record for the
plant.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
The liquid radwaste system is designed to process, and recycle to
the extent practicable, the liquid waste collected such that annual
radiation
[[Page 53476]]
doses to individuals from each unit resulting from routine liquid waste
discharges are maintained below the guidelines in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Liquid effluents are continuously monitored
and discharges are terminated if effluents exceed preset radioactivity
levels. Extended power uprate conditions will not result in significant
increases in the volume of liquid from the various sources to the
liquid radwaste system. The single largest source of liquid and wet
solid waste is the backwash of the condensate demineralizers. With
extended power uprate, the average time between backwash and precoat
will be reduced slightly. The floor drain collection subsystem and the
waste collection subsystem both receive periodic inputs from a variety
of sources; however, neither subsystem is expected to experience a
significant increase in the total volume of liquid radwaste due to
operation at extended power uprate conditions.
During normal operation, treated high-purity radwastes are normally
routed to condensate storage for reuse. Treated floor drain wastes can
also be routed to condensate storage, to the extent practical,
consistent with reactor water inventory and reactor water quality
requirements. Treated floor drain and chemical wastes are discharged
into the cooling tower blowdown discharge pipe after being sampled to
ensure discharge pipe concentrations after dilution are within
applicable limits.
The activated corrosion products in liquid wastes are expected to
increase proportionally to extended power uprate (approximately 8
percent). However, the total volume of processed waste is not expected
to increase appreciably, since the only significant increase is due to
the more frequent backwashes of the condensate demineralizers. The
staff concludes that information submitted by the licensee shows that
there will be no significant dose increase in the liquid pathway
resulting from the proposed extended power uprate.
Solid Radioactive Waste
The solid radioactive radwaste system collects, monitors,
processes, packages, and provides temporary storage facilities for
radioactive solid wastes prior to offsite shipment and permanent
disposal. Plant Hatch has implemented procedures to assure that the
processing and packaging of solid radioactive waste is accomplished in
compliance with the Commission's regulations.
Wet Wastes: Wet wastes, consisting primarily of spent demineralizer
resins and filter sludges, are accumulated in phase separators and
waste sludge tanks, which serve as storage and batching tanks for the
wet solid radwaste system.
The largest volume contributors to radioactive solid waste are the
spent resin and filter sludges from the process wastes. Equipment
wastes from operation and maintenance activities, chemical wastes, and
reactor system wastes also contribute to solid waste generation.
Extended power uprate conditions may involve a slight increase in the
process wastes generated from the operation of the reactor cleanup
filter demineralizers, fuel pool filter demineralizers, and the
condensate filter demineralizers. More frequent reactor water cleanup
backwashes are expected to occur under extended power uprate conditions
due to water chemistry limits. Extended power uprate will not involve
changes in either reactor water cleanup flow rates or filter
performance.
The principle effect of extended power uprate upon the condensate
demineralizer system is increased condensate flow and, consequently,
the condensate vessel differential pressure limit being reached more
frequently, resulting in reduced run times. Without any modification,
the spent resin generation from the condensate demineralizers would be
expected to increase. However, to offset this, Plant Hatch is adopting
the use of pleated filter elements in the demineralizer vessels. Use of
pleated filters will double the run times to about 50 days using
current demineralizer flow rates. Also, use of pleated filters allows
precoating with less resin, resulting in a 50 to 60 percent reduction
in resin usage. In conjunction with the adoption of pleated filters,
Plant Hatch is installing an air surge system, which increases the
energy of the backwash, enhancing the ability to flush material out of
the filters and extending the life of demineralizer filters. These
modifications will serve to minimize the amount of wet radwaste. The
staff concludes that implementation of the proposed extended power
uprate is not likely to have a significant impact on the volume or
activity of wet radioactive solid wastes at Plant Hatch.
Dry Wastes: Dry wastes consist of air filters, miscellaneous paper
and rags from contaminated areas, contaminated clothing, tools and
equipment parts that cannot be effectively decontaminated, and solid
laboratory wastes. The activity of much of this waste is low enough to
permit manual handling. Dry wastes are collected in containers located
throughout the plant, compacted as practicable, and then sealed and
removed to a controlled-access enclosed area for temporary storage.
Because of its low activity, dry waste can be stored until enough is
accumulated to permit economical transportation to an offsite
processing facility or a burial ground for final disposal. The staff
concludes that implementation of the proposed extended power uprate
should not have a significant impact on the volume or activity of the
dry solid radioactive wastes at Plant Hatch.
Irradiated Reactor Components: This waste consists primarily of
spent reactor control rod blades, fuel channels, incore ion chambers,
and large pieces of equipment. Because of the high activation and
contamination levels, reactor equipment waste is stored in the spent
fuel storage pool to allow for sufficient radioactive decay before
removal to inplant or offsite storage and final disposal in shielded
containers or casks. Because of the mitigating effects of extended
burnup and increased U-235 burnup, implementing the extended power
uprate is not likely to have a significant impact on the number of
irradiated reactor components discharged from the reactor.
Dose Consideration
Inplant Radiation: Increasing the rated power at Plant Hatch may
result in a potential increase in radiation sources in the reactor
coolant system. The increased flow of reactor coolant and feedwater
needed for the increased power level may result in changing patterns of
erosion and corrosion in various locations in the reactor coolant
system. This may result in the shifting of corrosion products
throughout the reactor coolant system and a corresponding shift in dose
rates in the vicinity of reactor coolant piping and components. In
addition, the increased core average flux may result in an increase in
the concentration of N-16 and activated corrosion products in the
reactor coolant system.
The licensee has implemented several programs in the last few years
that will serve to counteract any potential increases in dose rates
resulting from a power uprate. The licensee initiated a zinc injection
program in 1990 and a cobalt reduction program in 1993. These programs,
which are intended to reduce the level of activated corrosion products
in the reactor coolant system and to inhibit the further buildup of
corrosion products in reactor coolant system piping, resulted in a
greater than 400 percent reduction in the reactor coolant cobalt-60 and
zinc-65 concentrations
[[Page 53477]]
between 1993 and 1997. The licensee also performed chemical
decontaminations on Unit 1 in 1991 and 1996 to reduce radiation fields
in the reactor auxiliary systems. As a result of the chemical
decontaminations and other initiatives described above, dose rates
surrounding certain reactor coolant system components were reduced by
as much as 40 percent.
To counteract any potential increases in plant doses due to the
increase in N-16 levels in the reactor coolant from a power uprate, the
licensee performed plant shielding reviews of potentially affected
plant areas. Those target areas identified were modified to maintain
radiation levels within acceptable levels.
Weekly surveillance data collected since 1990 indicates that the
actual reactor water fission and corrosion product activity levels at
Plant Hatch are approximately 5 percent of the activity levels assumed
in the Plant Hatch original licensing basis. In addition, the average
collective dose per reactor at Plant Hatch for the past 5 years has
been well under the 500 person-rem value contained in the FES. The 3-
year average collective dose per reactor at Plant Hatch has been
trending downwards since 1990. In recent years (1991-95), occupational
doses have averaged about 0.7 person-cSv (person-rem) per megawatt-
year, which is consistent with doses at other boiling water reactors.
On the basis of the preceding information, the staff concludes that
the expected annual collective dose for Plant Hatch, following the
proposed extended power uprate, will still be bounded by the dose
estimate contained in the FES.
Offsite Doses: The staff has reviewed SNC's offsite dose analysis
that was provided to demonstrate that Plant Hatch can meet the offsite
effluent release requirements of as low as reasonably achievable. The
staff has also reviewed actual liquid and gaseous effluent release
data, in conjunction with current dispersion/deposition data and
periodic land/population/biota usage survey information. It is not
likely that the doses to offsite individuals due to normal operational
liquid effluent releases will exceed the estimated liquid effluent dose
values currently outlined in the final safety analysis reports (FSARs)
for Plant Hatch. The doses from airborne effluents are calculated to be
increased from the calculated values in the FSARs by about 2.4 percent
for the total body and 7.3 percent for the child's thyroid but the
relevant dose criteria will be met. The staff concludes that the
estimated doses from both the liquid and gaseous release pathways
resulting from extended power uprate conditions are well within the
design objectives specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and the
limits of 10 CFR Part 20.
Accident Consideration
The staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and has performed
confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the licensee's
calculated doses under accident conditions. The staff concludes that
the proposed extended power uprate will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents and will not result in a
significant increase in the radiological environmental impact of Plant
Hatch under accident conditions. The results of the staff's
calculations will be presented in the safety evaluation to be issued
with the license amendments.
Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts
Extended power uprate is expected to involve an increase in the
bundle average enrichment of the fuel. The environmental impacts of the
fuel cycle and of transportation of fuel and wastes are described in
Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An
additional NRC assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as
corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the
applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycles and
concluded that there is no significant change in environmental impact
for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent U-235
and burnups less than 60 GWd/MTU from the parameters evaluated in
Tables S-3 and S-4. Because the fuel enrichment for the extended power
uprate will not exceed 5 weight percent U-235 and the rod average
discharge exposure will not exceed 60 GWd/MTU, the environmental
impacts of the proposed extended power uprate will remain bounded by
these conclusions and are not significant.
Summary
In summary, the proposed extended power uprate will not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents,
will not introduce any new radiological release pathways, will not
result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation
exposure, and will not result in significant additional fuel cycle
environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Alternatives to Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded that there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. However, as an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
did consider denial of the proposed action. Denial of the proposed
action would result in no change in the current environmental impacts
of plant operation but would restrict operation to the currently
licensed power level. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative 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
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 24, 1998, the
staff consulted with the Georgia State official, James Setser of the
Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Final Finding of No Significant Impact
The staff has reviewed the proposed extended power uprate for Edwin
I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, relative to the requirements set
forth in 10 CFR Part 51. On August 27, 1998, the staff published a
draft Environmental Assessment in the Federal Register (63 FR 45874)
for public comment. No comments were received.
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action 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 action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated August 8, 1997, as supplemented by letters
dated March 9, May 6, July 6, July 31, September 4, and September 11,
1998, and the information submitted by letter dated April 17, 1997, in
advance of the licensee's application, all of which are 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 53478]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Herbert N. Berkow,
Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-26559 Filed 10-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
