[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 144 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38593-38595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-18444]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]


Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, 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 Georgia Power Company, et al. (GPC or the 
licensee), 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

    This Environmental Assessment, provided by the licensee, addresses 
potential environmental issues related to GPC's application to amend 
Plant Hatch, Units 1 and 2, Operating Licenses. The proposed amendments 
would increase the licensed core thermal power from 2436 MWt to 2558 
MWt, which represents an increase of 5 percent over the current 
licensed power level. This request is in accordance with the generic 
boiling water reactor (BWR) power uprate program established by the 
General Electric Company (GE) and approved by the NRC staff in a letter 
from W.T. Russell, NRC, to P.W. Marriott, GE, dated September 30, 1991. 
Implementation of the proposed power uprate at Plant Hatch will result 
in an increase of steam flow to approximately 106 percent of the 
current value, but will not require changes to the basic fuel design. 
Core reload design and fuel parameters will be modified as power uprate 
is implemented to support the current 18-month reload cycle. The higher 
power level will be achieved by expanding the power/flow map and 
slightly increasing reactor vessel dome pressure. The maximum core flow 
limit will not be increased over the pre-uprate value. Implementation 
of this proposed power uprate will require minor modifications, such as 
resetting of the safety relief setpoints, as well as calibrating plant 
instrumentation to reflect the uprated power. Plant operating, 
emergency, and other procedure changes will be made where necessary to 
support uprated operation.
    The proposed action involves NRC issuance of license amendments to 
uprate the authorized power level by changing the Operating Licenses, 
including Appendix A (Technical Specifications). Appendix B of the 
Operating License (Environmental Technical Specifications) does not 
require revision as a result of power uprate.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would authorize GPC to increase the potential 
electrical output of Plant Hatch by approximately 40 megawatts per unit 
and thus would provide additional electrical power to service GPC's 
grid.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The ``Final Environmental Statement'' (FES) related to operation of 
Plant Hatch Units 1 and 2 (Reference 6) evaluates the nonradiological 
impact of operation at a maximum design reactor power level of 2537 MWt 
per unit. By letter dated January 13, 1995 (Reference 1), GPC submitted 
the proposed amendment to implement power uprate for Hatch Units 1 and 
2 which is the subject of this environmental assessment. Enclosure 2 of 
that submittal provided information on the noradiological environmental 
aspects of the amendment request. Enclosure 4 was the Plant Hatch power 
uprate licensing report (GE report NEDC-32405P) which provided 
information on the radiological environmental impact of power uprate.
    The proposed amendments allowing power uprate operation will not 
have a significant impact on the environment and the change does not 
constitute an unreviewed environmental question. The nonradiological 
and radiological effects of the proposed action on the environment are 
described below.

Nonradiological Environmental Assessment

    Power uprate will not change the method of generating electricity 
nor the method of handling any influents from the environment or 
effluents to the environment. Therefore, no new or different types of 
environmental impacts are expected.
    The detailed evaluation presented below and in Reference 1 
concludes that nonradiological parameters affected by power uprate will 
remain within the bounding conditions cited in the FES, which concludes 
that no significant environmental impact will result from operation of 
Plant Hatch. This conclusion remains valid for power uprate.
    The FES evaluated the nonradiological impact at a maximum design 
reactor power level of 2537 MWt per unit (approximately 104 percent of 
the current licensed power level). The parameters evaluated in the 
Environmental Report and the subsequent FES (References 4 through 6) 
were re-evaluated at 2558 MWt to determine whether the proposed change 
is significant relative to adverse environmental impact. Table E2-1 of 
Reference 1 provided a comparison of environmental-related operation 
parameters at rated and uprated power. Both units at Plant Hatch 
utilize a closed-loop circulating year system and forced air cooling 
towers for dissipating heat from the main turbine condenser. Other 
equipment is cooled by the plant service water (PSW) and residual heat 
removal (RHR) service water systems. The cooling towers and service 
water systems are operated in accordance with the requirements of the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. GA 
0004120, which expires October 31, 1997. No notification changes or 
other action relative to the NPDES Permit are required.

[[Page 38594]]

    The withdrawal of cooling water from the Altamaha River is expected 
to increase slightly, primarily due to the increase in the evaporation 
rate from the cooling towers. Emergency system flows are expected to 
remain generally unchanged. Although increased heat loads are expected 
for nonsafety-related loads, such as the main generator stator coolers, 
hydrogen coolers, and exciter coolers, heat loads will remain within 
the existing design heat loads of the service water systems.
    The circulating water system design flow rate is the primary basis 
for determining makeup water for the Plant Hatch cooling towers. Other 
factors affecting tower makeup are tower performance and meteorological 
conditions. Based on the review of cooling tower performance parameters 
associated with power uprate, the design flow rate of the cooling 
towers will not change. Makeup requirements may increase slightly due 
to increased heat load on the towers and the associated increase in 
evaporation. As discussed in Enclosure 2 of Reference 1, the increase 
in makeup (withdrawal rate is expected to be approximately 5 percent or 
500 gpm. This projected increase associated with the uprate is not 
significant and is enveloped by the river water withdrawal rates 
discussed in the FES and the rates approved under the current Georgia 
Surface Water Withdrawal Permit for Plant Hatch. Intake canal velocity 
will not be significantly affected. No measurable effects on fish 
impingement or plankton entrainment are expected.
    Changes in cooling tower blowdown rate and cooling tower chemistry 
as a result of the uprate are not significant. Any changes in blowdown 
rate and cooling tower cycles of concentration resulting from uprated 
power operation are enveloped by the existing design criteria discussed 
in FES.
    Cooling tower drift does not increase as a result of the uprate 
since the circulating water flow rate does not change. Cooling tower 
blowdown temperature associated with power uprate operation increase 
slightly (<1  deg.F), thereby producing a slight increase in river 
discharge temperature. A review of the increase in the river discharge 
temperature relative to the conclusions of the FES and thermal studies 
required to support licensing of the plant indicates the slight 
temperature increase is not significant.
    The thermal plume characteristics are not expected to change 
significantly as a result of power uprate. Circulating water and 
service water flow rates remain unchanged. The discharge temperature to 
the cooling towers should increase by no more than 1  deg.F due to 
operation at power uprate conditions. The corresponding change in 
discharge temperature at the river will not significantly impact the 
size or characteristics of the thermal plume. Thermal plume studies 
conducted during original licensing and the FES conclusions relative to 
thermal impacts remain valid for the uprated condition.
    No significant change in discharge flow rate, velocity, or chemical 
composition will occur due to the proposed power uprate. Power uprate 
does not impact the discharge characteristics upon which the NPDES 
Permit is based. No notification, changes, or other actions relative to 
the NPDES Permit are required.
    No change in the groundwater withdrawal required to supply the 
Hatch treatment plant or fire protection system will result from the 
proposed uprate.
    The evaluation also considered the flow rate required by the liquid 
radwaste system (e.g., floor and equipment drains) due to the proposed 
uprate. No significant change in liquid radwaste quantities or activity 
levels which would increase the required radwaste dilution flow are 
expected. Therefore, the impact on the environment from these systems 
as a result of operation at the uprate power levels is not significant.
    Plant operation at uprated power conditions will not affect current 
noise levels. Major plant equipment is housed within structures located 
on the plant site and is not a major contributor to surrounding noise 
levels. Equipment, such as the main turbines/generators and the cooling 
towers, will continue to operate at the current speed and noise level. 
The generator step-up transformers will operate at an increased KVA 
level; however, the overall noise level will not increase 
significantly.
    Thus, the proposed uprate will not result in any significant 
environmental impact and is not an unreviewed environmental question. 
In addition, no actions relative to the Environmental Technical 
Specifications (ETS), NPDES permit or other environmental documents are 
required.

Radiological Environmental Assessment

    Georgia Power Company evaluated the impact of the proposed power 
uprate amendment and concluded that the applicable regulatory 
acceptance criteria relative to radiological environmental impacts will 
continue to be satisfied for the uprated power conditions. Existing 
Technical Specifications limits on radiological effluents will be 
maintained. In conducting this evaluation, GPC considered the effect of 
the higher power level on liquid radioactive wastes, gaseous 
radioactive wastes, and radiation levels both in the plant and offsite 
during both normal operation and post-accident.
    Enclosure 4 of Reference 1 provides the power uprate safety 
analyses report for Plant Hatch, as well as an assessment of the 
radiological effects of power uprate operation during both normal and 
postulated accident conditions. Sections 8.1 and 8.2 discuss the 
potential effect of power uprate on the liquid and gaseous radwaste 
systems. Sections 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 discuss the potential effect of 
power uprate on radiation sources within the plant and radiation levels 
during normal and post-accident conditions. Section 4.4 discusses the 
standby gas treatment system (SGTS). Section 9.2 presents the results 
of the calculated whole body and thyroid doses at the exclusion area 
boundary and the low population zone that might result from the 
postulated design basis radiological accidents. All offsite doses 
remain below established regulatory limits for power uprate operation.
    The floor drain collector subsystem and the waste collector 
subsystem both receive inputs from a variety of sources (e.g., leakage 
from component cooling water system, reactor coolant system, condensate 
and feedwater system, turbine, and plant cooling water system). 
However, leakages from these systems are not expected to increase 
significantly since the operating pressures of these systems are either 
being maintained constant or are being increased only slightly due to 
the proposed power uprate.
    The largest source of liquid radioactive waste is from the backwash 
of the condensate demineralizers. These demineralizers remove activated 
corrosion products which are expected to increase proportionally to the 
proposed power uprate. However, the total volume of processed waste is 
not expected to increase significantly, since the only appreciable 
increase in processed waste will be due to the slightly more frequent 
cleaning of these demineralizers. Based on a review of plant effluent 
reports and the slight increase expected due to the proposed power 
uprate, GPC has concluded that the slight increase in the processing of 
liquid radioactive wastes will not have a significant increase in 
environment impact and that requirements of 10 CFR part 20 and 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix I, will continue to be met.

[[Page 38595]]

    Gaseous radioactive effluents are produced during both normal 
operation and abnormal operation occurrences. These effluents are 
collected, controlled, processed, stored, and disposed of by the 
gaseous radioactive waste management systems which include the various 
building ventilation systems, the off gas system, and the SGTS. The 
concentration of radioactive gaseous effluents released through the 
building ventilation systems during normal operation is not expected to 
increase significantly due to the proposed power uprate since the 
amount of fission products released into the reactor coolant (and 
subsequently into the building atmosphere) depends on the number and 
nature of fuel rod defects and is not dependent on reactor power level. 
The concentration of activation products contained in the reactor 
coolant is expected to remain unchanged, since the linear increase in 
the production of these activation products will be offset by the 
linear increase in steaming rate. Therefore, based on its review of the 
various building ventilation systems, GPC has concluded that there will 
not be a significant adverse effect on airborne radioactive effluents 
as a result of the proposed power uprate.
    Radiolysis of the reactor coolant causes the formation of hydrogen 
and oxygen, the quantities of which increase linearly with core power. 
These additional quantities of hydrogen and oxygen would increase the 
flow to the recombiners by 5 percent during uprated power conditions. 
However, the operational increases in hydrogen and oxygen remain within 
the design capacity of the system.
    The SGTS is designed to minimize offsite and control room radiation 
dose rates during venting and purging of both the primary and secondary 
containment atmospheres under accident or abnormal conditions. This is 
accomplished by maintaining the secondary containment at a slightly 
negative pressure with respect to the outside atmosphere and 
discharging the secondary containment atmosphere through high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters and charcoal absorbers. The 
SGTS charcoal absorbers are designed for a charcoal loading capacity of 
2.5 mgI/gC for the 30-day loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) scenario. The 
proposed power uprate will increase the post-LOCA iodine loading by 5 
percent; however, the charcoal loading will remain within the 2.5 mgI/
gC design limit. Therefore, there will be no significant increase in 
environmental impact.
    Georgia Power Company evaluated the effects of the power uprate on 
in-plant radiation levels for Plant Hatch during both normal operation 
and post-accident. GPC's conclusions are that radiation levels during 
both normal operation and post-accident may increase slightly 
(approximately proportional to the increase in power level). The slight 
increases in in-plant radiation levels expected due to the proposed 
power uprate should not affect radiation zoning or shielding 
requirements. Individual worker occupational exposures will be 
maintained within acceptable limits by the existing as low as 
reasonably achievable (ALARA) program which GPC uses to control access 
to radiation areas. Therefore, the slightly increased in-plant 
radiation levels will not have a significant environmental impact.
    The offsite doses associated with normal operation are not 
significantly affected by operation at the proposed uprated power level 
and are expected to remain well within the limits of 10 CFR part 20 and 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix I. Existing Technical Specifications limits 
will not be changed due to uprate. Therefore, offsite doses due to 
power uprate conditions will not result in a significant environmental 
impact.
    Georgia Power Company performed does evaluations for design basis 
accidents at or above 102% of the uprated power level and reported 
these results in Reference 1. The offsite doses remain below regulatory 
limits and the increase due to power uprate is 5% or less.
    The NRC staff agrees with GPC's assessment of the radiological 
effects of the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
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 action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts of plant 
operation, but would restrict operation of Plant Hatch 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 Plant 
Hatch.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 20, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Georgia State official, James L. Setser of the 
Environmental Protection Division, 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 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 January 13, 1995, as supplemented by letters 
dated April 5 and June 20, 1995, 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.

References

    1. Georgia Power Company HL-4724, J. T. Beckham, Jr., to NRC, 
``Power Uprate Operation,'' dated January 13, 1995.
    2. Georgia Power Company HL-4812, J. T. Beckham, Jr., to NRC, 
``Response to Request for Additional Information--Power Uprate 
Submittal,'' dated April 5, 1995.
    3. Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 41, ``Niagara Mohawk Corporation; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,'' dated 
March 2, 1995.
    4. Georgia Power Company ``Final Environmental Statement for Edwin 
I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2,'' October 1972.
    5. Georgia Power Company Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant--Unit 2 
Environmental Report, Operating License Stage, June 1975.
    6. Georgia Power Company ``NUREG-0417,'' Final Environmental 
Statement Related to Operation of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit No. 
2, March 1978.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 1995.

    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. 95-18444 Filed 7-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M