[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