[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