[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76082-76083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7704]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear 
Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G), for 
Facility Operating License Nos. DRP-57 and NPF-5, issued to Southern 
Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the 
Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Hatch), located in 
Appling County, Georgia. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the 
NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no 
significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) and allow the licensee to perform a 
general visual examination of the accessible surface areas of the 
containment vessel pressure retaining vent system, in lieu of the VT-3 
examination required by 10 CFR.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated March 30, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated 
August 2 and 24, 2005.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    During the 3rd 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) interval, which 
ends December 31, 2005, the licensee's code of record, the 1992 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code (ASME Code), including the 1992 addenda, required a VT-3 
examination of the accessible surface areas of the boiling water 
reactor (BWR) vent system. For the 3rd 10-year ISI interval, by letter 
dated July 19, 2000, the licensee requested in Relief Request RR-MC-9 
to perform a general visual examination in lieu of the VT-3 
examination. The licensee explained that the proposed alternative was 
sufficient to detect the types of corrosion expected in the BWR vent 
system. This request was approved by the NRC by letter dated October 4, 
2000.

    For the 4th 10-year ISI interval, the licensee's code of record 
will be the 2001 edition through the 2003 addenda of the ASME Code. 
Modifications to the ASME Code and 10 CFR 50.55a have relocated the 
requirement to perform the VT-3 examination from the ASME Code to 10 
CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G). The licensee believes that the examination 
provisions previously authorized through Relief Request RR-MC-9 have 
proven to be sufficient to maintain the structural integrity and 
leak-tightness of the containment surfaces, and, therefore, serve 
the underlying purpose of the rule. The licensee is requesting to 
continue the use of similar provisions during the 4th ISI interval 
through an exemption.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that performing a general visual examination as part of 
maintaining the integrity of the coating system will ensure the 
integrity of the coated vent system components, providing an acceptable 
level of quality and safety.
    The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will be provided 
in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the 
licensee approving the exemption from the regulation.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant 
increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the 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

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those

[[Page 76083]]

previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to 
the Operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2,'' 
dated October 1972, and NUREG-0417, ``Final Environmental Statement 
Related to the Operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit 2,'' 
dated March 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on November 30, 2005, the 
staff consulted with the Georgia State official, James Hardeman, of the 
Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of 
the proposed action for Hatch. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 March 30, 2005, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 2 and 24, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied 
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of December 2004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher Gratton,
Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-7704 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P