Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 13215-13216 [05-5366]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 52 / Friday, March 18, 2005 / Notices For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. 05–5368 Filed 3–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc (SNC), Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement 18 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has published a final plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG–1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses NPF–2 and NPF–8 for an additional 20 years of operation at Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant (FNP). FNP is located in Houston County, Alabama, approximately 16.5 miles east of the City of Dothan, Alabama. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. Section 9.3 of the final supplement 18 states: Based on: (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS (NRC 1996; 1999), (2) the environmental report submitted by SNC (SNC 2003), (3) consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, (4) the staff’s own independent review, and (5) the staff’s consideration of public comments, the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Farley Units 1 and 2, are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable. The final Supplement 18 to the GEIS is available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC’s Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who VerDate jul<14>2003 16:14 Mar 17, 2005 Jkt 205001 encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the PDR reference staff at 1– 800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Houston Love Memorial Library, 212 West Burdeshaw Street, Dothan, Alabama, and the Lucy Maddox Memorial Library, 11880 Columbia Street, Blakely, Georgia, have agreed to make the final plant-specific supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Cushing, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Mr. Cushing may be contacted at 301– 415–1424 or via e-mail at JXC9@nrc.gov. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05–5365 Filed 3–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 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, Appendix G, for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–68 and NPF–81, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee), for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1, and 2, located in Waynesboro, 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 part 50, Appendix G, footnote 2 to table 1, and allow the licensee to use the methodology in Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power Report (WCAP), WCAP–16142, Revision 1, ‘‘Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 13215 Flange Requirements Evaluation for Vogtle Units 1 and 2,’’ to justify eliminating the reactor vessel/head flange region when determining pressure-temperature (P–T) limits for the reactor vessel. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee’s application dated February 26, 2004, as supplemented on July 8, and October 22, 2004. The Need for the Proposed Action: Appendix G of 10 CFR part 50, contains requirements for P–T limits for the primary system, and requirements for metal temperature of the closure head flange and vessel flange regions. The P–T limits are to be determined using the methodology of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section XI, Appendix G, but the flange temperature requirements are specified in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G. This rule states that the metal temperature at the closure flange regions must exceed the material unirradiated RTNDT by at least 120 °F for normal operation when the pressure exceeds 20 percent of the pre-service hydrostatic test pressure. This requirement was originally based on concerns about the fracture margin in the closure flange region. During the boltup process, outside surface stresses in this region typically reach over 70 percent of the steady state stress, without being at steady state temperature. The margin of 120 °F and the pressure limitation of 20 percent of hydrostatic pressure were developed in the mid-1970s using the Kla fracture toughness to ensure that appropriate margins would be maintained. Improved knowledge of fracture toughness and other issues that affect the integrity of the reactor vessel have led to the recent change to allow the use of Klc in the development of P–T curves, as contained in ASME Code Case N– 640, ‘‘Alternative Reference Fracture Toughness for Development of P–T Limit Curves for Section XI, Division 1.’’ ASME Code Case, N–640 has been approved for use without conditions by the NRC staff in Regulatory Guide 1.147, ‘‘Inservice Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,’’ published in June 2003. However, P–T limit curves can still produce operational constraints by limiting the operational range available to the operator during heatup and cooldown of the plant, especially when considering requirements in the closure head flange and the vessel flange regions. Implementing the P–T curves that use Klc material fracture toughness without exempting the flange requirement of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, would place a restricted E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1 13216 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 52 / Friday, March 18, 2005 / Notices operating window in the temperature range associated with the closure head flange and reactor vessel flange, without a commensurate increase in plant safety. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the more conservative minimum temperature requirements related to footnote (2) to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G are not necessary to meet the underlying intent of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, to protect the Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPVs from brittle fracture during normal operation under both core critical and core non-critical conditions and RPV hydrostatic and leak test conditions. The details of the NRC staffs safety evaluation will be provided in the amendment and exemption that will be issued as part of letter to the licensee approving the amendment and exemption to the regulation. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequence of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off-site, 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. 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 NRC 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 resource than those previously considered in NUREG–1087, ‘‘Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,’’ dated December 1985. VerDate jul<14>2003 16:14 Mar 17, 2005 Jkt 205001 Agencies and Persons Consulted: On January 6, 2005, the NRC staff consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. Jim Hardeman 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 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 February 26, 2004, as supplemented on July 8, and October 22, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 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, https://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 by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. John Nakoski, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 05–5366 Filed 3–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Week of March 14, 2005. PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: DATE: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Private Fuel Storage (Independent Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: March 15, 2005. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05–5468 Filed 3–16–05; 9:25 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–M RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Week of March 14, 2005 PO 00000 Spent Fuel Storage Installation) Docket No. 72–22–ISFSI (Tentative). *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415–1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415–1651. * * * * * ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: By a vote of 5– 0 on March 15, 2005, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission’s rules that ‘‘Affirmation of Private Fuel Storage (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation) Docket No. 72–22–ISFSI’’ be held March 16, 2005, and on less than one week’s notice to the public. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: https://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/ policy-making/schedule.html. * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC’s Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at (301) 415–7080, TDD: (301) 415–2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301) 415–1969. In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Proposed Collection; Comment Request SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of E:\FR\FM\18MRN1.SGM 18MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 52 (Friday, March 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13215-13216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5366]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Vogtle Electric Generating 
Plant, Units 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, Appendix G, for Renewed Facility 
Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, issued to Southern Nuclear 
Operating Company (the licensee), for operation of the Vogtle Electric 
Generating Plant (Vogtle), Units 1, and 2, located in Waynesboro, 
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 part 50, Appendix 
G, footnote 2 to table 1, and allow the licensee to use the methodology 
in Westinghouse Commercial Atomic Power Report (WCAP), WCAP-16142, 
Revision 1, ``Reactor Vessel Closure Head/Vessel Flange Requirements 
Evaluation for Vogtle Units 1 and 2,'' to justify eliminating the 
reactor vessel/head flange region when determining pressure-temperature 
(P-T) limits for the reactor vessel.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated February 26, 2004, as supplemented on July 8, and 
October 22, 2004.
    The Need for the Proposed Action: Appendix G of 10 CFR part 50, 
contains requirements for P-T limits for the primary system, and 
requirements for metal temperature of the closure head flange and 
vessel flange regions. The P-T limits are to be determined using the 
methodology of American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code), Section XI, Appendix G, but the 
flange temperature requirements are specified in 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix G. This rule states that the metal temperature at the closure 
flange regions must exceed the material unirradiated RTNDT 
by at least 120 [deg]F for normal operation when the pressure exceeds 
20 percent of the pre-service hydrostatic test pressure.
    This requirement was originally based on concerns about the 
fracture margin in the closure flange region. During the boltup 
process, outside surface stresses in this region typically reach over 
70 percent of the steady state stress, without being at steady state 
temperature. The margin of 120 [deg]F and the pressure limitation of 20 
percent of hydrostatic pressure were developed in the mid-1970s using 
the Kla fracture toughness to ensure that appropriate 
margins would be maintained.
    Improved knowledge of fracture toughness and other issues that 
affect the integrity of the reactor vessel have led to the recent 
change to allow the use of Klc in the development of P-T 
curves, as contained in ASME Code Case N-640, ``Alternative Reference 
Fracture Toughness for Development of P-T Limit Curves for Section XI, 
Division 1.'' ASME Code Case, N-640 has been approved for use without 
conditions by the NRC staff in Regulatory Guide 1.147, ``Inservice 
Inspection Code Case Acceptability, ASME Section XI, Division 1,'' 
published in June 2003.
    However, P-T limit curves can still produce operational constraints 
by limiting the operational range available to the operator during 
heatup and cooldown of the plant, especially when considering 
requirements in the closure head flange and the vessel flange regions. 
Implementing the P-T curves that use Klc material fracture 
toughness without exempting the flange requirement of 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix G, would place a restricted

[[Page 13216]]

operating window in the temperature range associated with the closure 
head flange and reactor vessel flange, without a commensurate increase 
in plant safety.
    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC has completed 
its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the 
more conservative minimum temperature requirements related to footnote 
(2) to Table 1 of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G are not necessary to meet 
the underlying intent of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, to protect the 
Vogtle, Units 1 and 2 RPVs from brittle fracture during normal 
operation under both core critical and core non-critical conditions and 
RPV hydrostatic and leak test conditions.
    The details of the NRC staffs safety evaluation will be provided in 
the amendment and exemption that will be issued as part of letter to 
the licensee approving the amendment and exemption to the regulation.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequence of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off-site, 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.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological 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 NRC 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 resource than those previously considered in NUREG-
1087, ``Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the 
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' dated December 1985.
    Agencies and Persons Consulted: On January 6, 2005, the NRC staff 
consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. Jim Hardeman 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

    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 February 26, 2004, as supplemented on July 8, 
and October 22, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a 
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White 
Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 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, https://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 by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John Nakoski,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-5366 Filed 3-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.