Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Exemption, 2585-2586 [E6-415]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
In the absence of any request for
hearing, or written approval of an
extension of time in which to request a
hearing, the provisions specified in
Section V above shall be effective
immediately and final 20 days from the
date of this Order without further order
or proceedings. If an extension of time
for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in
Section V shall be final when the
extension expires if a hearing request
has not been received.
Dated this 4th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Martin J. Virgilio,
Deputy Executive Director for Materials,
Research, State, and Compliance Programs,
Office of the Executive Director for
Operations.
[FR Doc. E6–416 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
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 Exemption
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
1.0 Background
The Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc. (SNC, or the licensee), is
the holder of Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–57 and NPF–5 which
authorizes operation of the Edwin I.
Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2
(Hatch 1 and 2), respectively. The
license provides, among other things,
that the facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC,
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two boiling
water reactors located in Appling
County, Georgia.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), Section
50.55a(b)(2)(ix), states the requirements
for the examination of metal
containments and liners of concrete
containments. In particular, Section
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) requires, in part, that
a VT–3 examination method be used to
conduct examinations of Item E.20 of
Table IWE–2500–1 of Section IX of the
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel
Code (ASME Code).
By letter dated March 30, 2005, as
supplemented by letters dated August 2
and 24, 2005, the licensee submitted a
request for an exemption from the
requirements of Section
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G). The exemption
request would allow the licensee to
perform an alternative examination of
the accessible surface areas of the
containment vessel pressure retaining
boundary vent system, in lieu of the
VT–3 examination required by the rule.
The licensee stated that the alternate
examination method is currently in use
at Hatch 1 and 2 and has proven to be
sufficient to maintain the structural
integrity and leak-tightness of the
containment surfaces, and, therefore,
serves the underlying purpose of the
rule.
The licensee is currently in its 3rd 10year inservice inspection (ISI) interval.
The licensee’s code of record for the 3rd
10-year ISI interval is the 1992 edition
through the 1992 addenda of the ASME
Code. The code of record contains the
requirement to perform a VT–3
examination of the accessible surface
areas of the vent system. In Relief
Request RR-MC–9 submitted by letter
dated July 19, 2000, the licensee
requested relief from the requirement to
perform a VT–3 examination on
nonsubmerged, accessible pressure
boundary surfaces, including the vent
system, at the end of the 3rd 10-year ISI
interval. The licensee explained that the
proposed alternative to perform a
general visual examination was
sufficient to detect the types of
corrosion expected in the components
covered by the relief. On October 4,
2000, this request was approved by the
NRC staff.
The licensee’s 4th 10-year ISI interval
is scheduled to begin in 2006. The
licensee’s code of record for this interval
will be the 2001 edition through the
2003 addenda of the ASME Code.
Modifications to the ASME Code and 10
CFR 50.55a since the beginning of the
3rd 10-year ISI interval have relocated
the requirement to perform the subject
VT–3 examination from the ASME Code
to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). As a result,
licensees wanting relief from the
requirement to perform a VT–3
examination for the subject structures
must now request an exemption from
the requirements of 10 CFR
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G).
The licensee stated in its August 24,
2005, letter 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. As an alternative to the VT–
3 examination, SNC is proposing the
examination on all nonsubmerged,
accessible pressure boundary surfaces of
the vent system. This general visual-
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2585
type examination will be performed in
accordance with the Hatch 1 and 2
Qualified (N) Coatings Program. The
licensee indicated that the details of this
program were provided in the October
19, 1998, response to NRC Generic
Letter 98–04, ‘‘Potential for Degradation
of the Emergency Core Cooling System
and the Containment Spray System after
a Loss-of-Coolant Accident Because of
Construction and Protective Coating
Deficiencies and Foreign Material in
Containment.’’ The procedures and
personnel qualifications applicable for
the coatings program implementation
are in compliance with Regulatory
Guide 1.54 (1973), and the
implementation is based on the
following documents: (1) ANSI N 101.2–
1972, ‘‘Protective Coatings (Plants) for
Light Water Nuclear Reactor
Containment Facilities;’’ (2) ANSI
N101.4–1972, ‘‘Quality Assurance for
Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear
Facilities;’’ and (3) EPRI Report TR–
109937, ‘‘Guideline on Nuclear SafetyRelated Coatings.’’ This program was
approved by the NRC staff in a letter
dated November 19, 1999.
The licensee further noted that the
Qualified (N) Coatings program
examination frequency is equivalent to
the requirements of Section XI to the
ASME Code, and the program requires
that when evidence of degradation is
detected, a detailed examination and
evaluation be performed. The detailed
visual examination would be performed
in accordance with the provisions of
ASME Code, Section XI, paragraph
IWE–2310(c). The exterior surfaces of
the vent system that connects the
drywell to the suppression pool are
located in the reactor building. The
reactor building environment does not
pose adverse conditions that would
promote rapid degradation of the
outside pressure boundary surfaces of
the vent system. The interior surfaces of
the vent system that connect the drywell
to the suppression pool and the portions
of the vent system located inside the
suppression pool are maintained in a
nitrogen inerted environment during
normal power operation in accordance
with technical specification
requirements. Operational experience
and previous examinations have
indicated that this environment does
not promote rapid degradation of the
surfaces.
The licensee stated that the
requirements specified for a VT–3
examination were developed for
detecting flaws in metal components
and are more stringent than those
required for detecting corrosion-related
degradation. Since corrosion of base
metal is the primary issue of concern for
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
2586
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2006 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
containment pressure boundary surface
areas, a general visual-type examination,
in accordance with the Hatch 1 and 2
Qualified (N) Coatings Program, is
sufficient to inspect the subject surface
areas of the containment and will
provide an acceptable level of quality
and safety.
In summary, the licensee is proposing
an exemption from the requirements of
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) to use an
alternate examination method to
examine Item E.20 of Table IWE–2500–
1 of ASME Code, Section XI, pursuant
to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) and 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii). The licensee stated in its
application that compliance with the
visual examination requirements of
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) is not
necessary for accessible surface areas of
the containment vessel pressure
retaining boundary Vent System to
achieve the underlying purpose of the
rule.
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the
Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when:
(1) The exemptions are authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
public health or safety, and are
consistent with the common defense
and security; and (2) when special
circumstances are present. Special
circumstances are present whenever, in
accordance with 10 CFR Part
50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the
regulation in the particular
circumstances would not serve the
underlying purpose of the rule or is not
necessary to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule * * *.’’ Therefore,
in determining the acceptability of the
licensee’s exemption request, the NRC
staff has performed the following
evaluation to satisfy the requirements of
10 CFR 50.12 for granting the
exemption.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G), as it applies to Item
E1.20 of Table IWE–2500–1, is to ensure
that an examination of the metal
containment or the metal liner of a
concrete containment is performed to
identify corrosion or other degradation
that could affect the structural or leaktight integrity of the structure.
The NRC staff examined the licensee’s
rationale to support the exemption
request and concluded that maintaining
the integrity of the coating system
applied to the Hatch 1 and 2
containment vent system components is
a preventive measure that would protect
against corrosion of the coated
components. As the licensee
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:57 Jan 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
emphasizes the effectiveness of its
coating program, the NRC staff believes
that the general visual examination
performed as part of maintaining the
integrity of the coating system is a
proactive action and will ensure the
integrity of the coated vent system
components. The proposed alternative
will provide the quality and safety level
similar to the one intended by the use
of VT–3 examination of the vent system
components, and would meet the
underlying purpose of 10 CFR Section
50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G).
Based on a consideration of proposed
alternatives contained in the licensee’s
letters dated March 20, and August 2
and 24, 2005, the NRC staff concludes
that degradation of the containment
structure would be detected using the
proposed alternative, thus meeting the
underlying purpose of the rule.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
the proposed exemption from 10 CFR
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) is acceptable.
4.0
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to
the public health and safety, and is
consistent with the common defense
and security. Also, special
circumstances are present. Therefore,
the Commission hereby grants SNC an
exemption from the requirement of 10
CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) to
perform a VT–3 examination for Item
E1.2 of Table IWE–2500–1, for Hatch 1
and 2, for the 4th 10-year ISI interval.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the
Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have
a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment (70 FR 76082).
This exemption is effective upon
issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day
of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6–415 Filed 1–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses Involving No Significant
Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC
staff) is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from December
22, 2005 to January 5, 2006. The last
biweekly notice was published on
January 3, 2006 (71 FR 145).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a
proposed determination that the
following amendment requests involve
no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission’s regulations in
10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2)
create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated; or (3)
involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety. The basis for this
proposed determination for each
amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public
comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received
within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be
considered in making any final
determination. Within 60 days after the
date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the
amendment to the subject facility
operating license and any person whose
interest may be affected by this
E:\FR\FM\17JAN1.SGM
17JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2585-2586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-415]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Exemption
1.0 Background
The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, or the
licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and
NPF-5 which authorizes operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant,
Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Hatch 1 and 2), respectively. The license provides,
among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC,
Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of two boiling water reactors located in
Appling County, Georgia.
2.0 Request/Action
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section
50.55a(b)(2)(ix), states the requirements for the examination of metal
containments and liners of concrete containments. In particular,
Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) requires, in part, that a VT-3 examination
method be used to conduct examinations of Item E.20 of Table IWE-2500-1
of Section IX of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).
By letter dated March 30, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated
August 2 and 24, 2005, the licensee submitted a request for an
exemption from the requirements of Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G). The
exemption request would allow the licensee to perform an alternative
examination of the accessible surface areas of the containment vessel
pressure retaining boundary vent system, in lieu of the VT-3
examination required by the rule. The licensee stated that the
alternate examination method is currently in use at Hatch 1 and 2 and
has proven to be sufficient to maintain the structural integrity and
leak-tightness of the containment surfaces, and, therefore, serves the
underlying purpose of the rule.
The licensee is currently in its 3rd 10-year inservice inspection
(ISI) interval. The licensee's code of record for the 3rd 10-year ISI
interval is the 1992 edition through the 1992 addenda of the ASME Code.
The code of record contains the requirement to perform a VT-3
examination of the accessible surface areas of the vent system. In
Relief Request RR-MC-9 submitted by letter dated July 19, 2000, the
licensee requested relief from the requirement to perform a VT-3
examination on nonsubmerged, accessible pressure boundary surfaces,
including the vent system, at the end of the 3rd 10-year ISI interval.
The licensee explained that the proposed alternative to perform a
general visual examination was sufficient to detect the types of
corrosion expected in the components covered by the relief. On October
4, 2000, this request was approved by the NRC staff.
The licensee's 4th 10-year ISI interval is scheduled to begin in
2006. The licensee's code of record for this interval will be the 2001
edition through the 2003 addenda of the ASME Code. Modifications to the
ASME Code and 10 CFR 50.55a since the beginning of the 3rd 10-year ISI
interval have relocated the requirement to perform the subject VT-3
examination from the ASME Code to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). As a result,
licensees wanting relief from the requirement to perform a VT-3
examination for the subject structures must now request an exemption
from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G).
The licensee stated in its August 24, 2005, letter 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. As an alternative to the VT-3
examination, SNC is proposing the examination on all nonsubmerged,
accessible pressure boundary surfaces of the vent system. This general
visual-type examination will be performed in accordance with the Hatch
1 and 2 Qualified (N) Coatings Program. The licensee indicated that the
details of this program were provided in the October 19, 1998, response
to NRC Generic Letter 98-04, ``Potential for Degradation of the
Emergency Core Cooling System and the Containment Spray System after a
Loss-of-Coolant Accident Because of Construction and Protective Coating
Deficiencies and Foreign Material in Containment.'' The procedures and
personnel qualifications applicable for the coatings program
implementation are in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.54 (1973), and
the implementation is based on the following documents: (1) ANSI N
101.2-1972, ``Protective Coatings (Plants) for Light Water Nuclear
Reactor Containment Facilities;'' (2) ANSI N101.4-1972, ``Quality
Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Facilities;'' and
(3) EPRI Report TR-109937, ``Guideline on Nuclear Safety-Related
Coatings.'' This program was approved by the NRC staff in a letter
dated November 19, 1999.
The licensee further noted that the Qualified (N) Coatings program
examination frequency is equivalent to the requirements of Section XI
to the ASME Code, and the program requires that when evidence of
degradation is detected, a detailed examination and evaluation be
performed. The detailed visual examination would be performed in
accordance with the provisions of ASME Code, Section XI, paragraph IWE-
2310(c). The exterior surfaces of the vent system that connects the
drywell to the suppression pool are located in the reactor building.
The reactor building environment does not pose adverse conditions that
would promote rapid degradation of the outside pressure boundary
surfaces of the vent system. The interior surfaces of the vent system
that connect the drywell to the suppression pool and the portions of
the vent system located inside the suppression pool are maintained in a
nitrogen inerted environment during normal power operation in
accordance with technical specification requirements. Operational
experience and previous examinations have indicated that this
environment does not promote rapid degradation of the surfaces.
The licensee stated that the requirements specified for a VT-3
examination were developed for detecting flaws in metal components and
are more stringent than those required for detecting corrosion-related
degradation. Since corrosion of base metal is the primary issue of
concern for
[[Page 2586]]
containment pressure boundary surface areas, a general visual-type
examination, in accordance with the Hatch 1 and 2 Qualified (N)
Coatings Program, is sufficient to inspect the subject surface areas of
the containment and will provide an acceptable level of quality and
safety.
In summary, the licensee is proposing an exemption from the
requirements of Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) to use an alternate
examination method to examine Item E.20 of Table IWE-2500-1 of ASME
Code, Section XI, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) and 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii). The licensee stated in its application that compliance
with the visual examination requirements of Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G)
is not necessary for accessible surface areas of the containment vessel
pressure retaining boundary Vent System to achieve the underlying
purpose of the rule.
3.0 Discussion
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are
authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or
safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are
present whenever, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.12(a)(2)(ii),
``Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would
not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to
achieve the underlying purpose of the rule * * *.'' Therefore, in
determining the acceptability of the licensee's exemption request, the
NRC staff has performed the following evaluation to satisfy the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 for granting the exemption.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G), as it applies
to Item E1.20 of Table IWE-2500-1, is to ensure that an examination of
the metal containment or the metal liner of a concrete containment is
performed to identify corrosion or other degradation that could affect
the structural or leak-tight integrity of the structure.
The NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the
exemption request and concluded that maintaining the integrity of the
coating system applied to the Hatch 1 and 2 containment vent system
components is a preventive measure that would protect against corrosion
of the coated components. As the licensee emphasizes the effectiveness
of its coating program, the NRC staff believes that the general visual
examination performed as part of maintaining the integrity of the
coating system is a proactive action and will ensure the integrity of
the coated vent system components. The proposed alternative will
provide the quality and safety level similar to the one intended by the
use of VT-3 examination of the vent system components, and would meet
the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G).
Based on a consideration of proposed alternatives contained in the
licensee's letters dated March 20, and August 2 and 24, 2005, the NRC
staff concludes that degradation of the containment structure would be
detected using the proposed alternative, thus meeting the underlying
purpose of the rule. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the
proposed exemption from 10 CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) is
acceptable.
4.0 Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common
defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present.
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SNC an exemption from the
requirement of 10 CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) to perform a VT-3
examination for Item E1.2 of Table IWE-2500-1, for Hatch 1 and 2, for
the 4th 10-year ISI interval.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment (70 FR 76082).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-415 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P