[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 167 (Monday, August 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52140-52141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-21885]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 an exemption from certain requirements of Title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 
50.60(a) to the Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (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

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain 
provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix G. The NRC has established requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 to 
protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB) 
in nuclear power plants. As part of these requirements, 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix G requires that pressure-temperature (P-T) limits be 
established for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal operating 
and hydrostatic pressure and leak rate test conditions. Specifically, 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G states that ``[t]he appropriate requirements 
* * * on pressure-temperature limits and minimum permissible 
temperature must be met for all conditions.'' Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 
50 specifies that the requirements for these limits are the American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI, Appendix G 
limits.
    Pressurized water reactor licensees have installed cold 
overpressure mitigation systems/low temperature overpressure protection 
(LTOP) systems in order to protect the RCPB from being operated outside 
of the boundaries established by the P-T limit curves and to provide 
pressure relief on the RCPB during low temperature overpressurization 
events. The licensee is required by the Hatch Technical Specifications 
(TS) to update and submit the changes to its LTOP setpoints whenever 
the licensee is requesting approval for amendments to the P-T limit 
curves in the Hatch TS.
    Therefore, in order to address provisions of amendments to the TS 
P-T limits and LTOP curves, the licensee requested in its submittal 
dated June 1, 2000, that the staff exempt Hatch, Units 1 and 2 from 
application of specific requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 
50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G and substitute use of two ASME 
Code Cases as follows:
    1. N-588 for determining the reactor vessel P-T limits derived from 
postulating a circumferentially-oriented reference flaw in a 
circumferential weld, and
    2. N-640 as an alternate reference fracture toughness for reactor 
vessel materials for use in determining the P-T limits.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption contained a submittal dated June 1, 2000, and 
is needed to support the TS amendments that are contained in the same 
submittal and are being processed separately. The proposed amendments 
will revise the P-T limits of TS 3.4.9 for Hatch, Units 1 and 2 related 
to the heatup, cooldown, and inservice test limitations for the Reactor 
Coolant System of each unit to a maximum of 54 Effective Full Power 
Years (EFPY).

The Need for the Proposed Action

    ASME Code Case N-588 and Code Case N-640 are needed to revise the 
method used to determine the RCS P-T limits since continued use of the 
present curves unnecessarily restricts the P-T operating window. 
Application of the codes will, therefore, relax the LTOP operating 
window and reduce potential challenges to the reactor coolant system 
power operated relief valves.
    In the associated exemption, the staff has determined that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the 
regulation will continue to be served by the implementation of these 
Code Cases.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the exemption described above would provide an 
adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the Hatch, Units 1 
and 2 reactor vessels.
    The proposed action will not significantly 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 occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.

[[Page 52141]]

    With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts, the 
proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect 
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impacts. 
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated 
with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. 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 dated October 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 11, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the Georgia State official, James Setser, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of 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 June 1, 2000, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publically available 
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of August 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard L. Emch, Jr.,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-21885 Filed 8-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P