ML20093L534
| ML20093L534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1995 |
| From: | Nerses V NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093L535 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510250384 | |
| Download: ML20093L534 (5) | |
Text
_.
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-366 EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNIT 2 EMYIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F 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 j
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 9510250304 951019 PDR ADOCK 05000366 P
. 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, i
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 i
'i 3
accident pressure, as required by Section III.C.2 of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part j
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 i-accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be i
released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable j
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
j j
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 i
j that standard and conservative assumptions have been used to calculate the i
i
)
i offsite and control room doses, including the doses due to MSIV leakage, which 1
-l j
could potentially result from a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
t l
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 f
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
_4-are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the 8
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.
Aaencies 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 l
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., W'shington, DC, and at the local public document room located a
at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-Victor Nerses, Acting Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation