[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-4560]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 1, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-366]
Georgia Power Co., 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 issuance of an amendment to the Georgia Power Company,
acting for itself, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric
Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensees),
for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (Hatch or the facility),
Facility Operating License No. NPF-5, located in Appling County,
Georgia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would change the Hatch Unit 2 Technical
Specifications (TS) to increase the allowable main steam isolation
valve (MSIV) leakage rate from 11.5 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh)
to 100 scfh for any one MSIV and a combined maximum pathway leakage
rate of 250 scfh for all four main steam lines, and would delete the TS
requirements for the currently installed MSIV leakage control system
(LCS).
The proposed amendment is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 1, 1993, as revised January 6, 1994, and
supplemented February 3, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment is needed to reduce the need for repairs of
the MSIVs in order to meet the present, restrictive, leakage
requirements; to resolve concerns associated with the current LCS
performance capability at high MSIV leakage rates; and to assure a
reliable and effective method is available for treating any potential
MSIV leakage during a postulated loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Many
BWRs have difficulty meeting their MSIV leakage rate limits. Extensive
repair, rework and retesting efforts have negative effects on outage
costs and schedules, as well as significant impact on ALARA (as low as
reasonably achievable) radiological exposure programs for the
licensee's staff and labor force. The alternate means proposed by the
licensee to treat MSIV leakage makes use of components and systems that
can reasonably be expected to remain intact and serviceable following a
design basis LOCA. These components are the main steam lines and
condenser.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will not result in a significant change in
the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that
may be released offsite. The proposed action will not increase
potential radiological environmental effects due to MSIV leakage beyond
those already permitted by the regulations.
MSIV leakage, along with containment leakage, is used to calculate
the maximum radiological consequences of a design basis accident.
Standard conservative assumptions were used to calculate offsite,
control room and the technical support center (TSC) doses, including
the doses due to MSIV leakage, which could potentially result from a
postulated design basis LOCA at Hatch, and are described in Section
15.1.39 of the Hatch Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The
control room, TSC, and offsite doses resulting from a postulated LOCA
have recently been recalculated using currently accepted iodine dose
conversion factors. This analysis demonstrated that a total leakage
rate of 250 scfh results in dose exposures for the control room, TSC,
and offsite (exclusion area boundary and low population zone) that
remain within the requirements of 10 CFR part 100 for offsite doses and
10 CFR part 50, appendix A, for the control room and TSC.
Deletion of the MSIV Leakage Control System will reduce the overall
occupational dose exposures due to the elimination of maintenance and
surveillance activities associated with the system. The dose exposure
associated with deleting the system will be as low as reasonably
achievable and will be less than the dose which would result from
maintenance and surveillance activities associated with the present
system for the remainder of plant life.
Therefore, radiological releases will not differ significantly from
those determined previously, and the proposed amendment does not
otherwise affect facility radiological effluent or occupational
exposures. With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the
proposed action does not affect plant nonradiological effluents and has
no other nonradiological environmental impact.
Therefore, there will not be a significant increase in the types or
amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite and, as such, the
proposed amendment does not involve irreversible environmental
consequences beyond those already associated with normal operation of
the plant.
Based on its review, the Commission concludes that the proposed
amendment is acceptable. The staff has determined that the proposed
amendment does not alter any initial conditions assumed for the design
basis accidents previously evaluated and the alternate system is
capable of mitigating the design basis accidents.
The proposed amendment does 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. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that proposed
action would result in no significant radiological environmental
impact.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves components in the plant which are located within the
restricted area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not affect
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impacts.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed
amendment.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded that there are no significant
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative would be to deny the licensee's
request for the proposed amendment. This would not reduce environmental
impacts of plant operation.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, dated March 1978.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The staff consulted with the State of Georgia regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on the foregoing 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 amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated October 1, 1993, as revised January 6,
1994, and supplemented February 3, 1994, which is available for public
inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and the local
public document room located at the Appling County Public Library, 301
City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia 31513.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of February 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Loren R. Plisco,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-4560 Filed 2-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
