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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear

Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.

DPR-57 and NPF-5 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.,

for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,

located in Appling County, Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By letter dated August 8, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated

March 9, May 6, July 6, July 31, September 4, and September 11, 1998,

Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC/the licensee), requested

amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NFP-5 for the

operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Plant Hatch), Units 1

and 2, located on the Altamaha River in Appling County, approximately

11 miles north of Baxley, Georgia. On April 17, 1997, information

concerning the SNC dose assessment for Plant Hatch was submitted in

advance of the application for license amendments.

SNC has requested an increase in the maximum thermal power (MWt)

from 2558 MWt to 2763 MWt, which represents a power increase of 8

percent. This is considered an extended power uprate because it follows

a 5 percent power uprate from the original licensing basis of 2436 MWt

to 2558 MWt, which was implemented following the Unit 2 fall 1995

outage and the Unit 1 spring 1996 outage.

The Need for the Proposed Action

SNC forecasts the increase in electrical generation to allow

prudent planning for adding power capacity. Large base load plants are

not required for several years. However, expected increases in customer

demand will be met by either increasing the number of combustion

turbines or purchasing electrical power from other sources. The

proposed extended power uprate will provide increased reactor power,

thus adding an additional 80 to 120 MW of reliable electrical

generating capacity to the grid without major hardware modifications to

the plant and will displace the need for two 50-megawatts electric gas

turbines. Because of design and safety margins in the plant equipment,

the proposed extended power uprate can be accomplished with relatively

few modifications. Also, because Plant Hatch is already in operation,

impacts of construction can be avoided. The cost of adding this nuclear

generating capacity roughly equals the cost of constructing combustion

turbines; however, the fuel cost of nuclear power is approximately one-

tenth that of natural gas and the additional energy is expected to be

produced for less than 1 cent per kilowatt hour. Furthermore, unlike

fossil fuel plants, Plant Hatch does not routinely emit sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide, or other atmospheric pollutants that

contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

At the time of the issuance of the operating licenses for Plant

Hatch, the NRC staff noted that any activity authorized by the license

is encompassed by the overall action evaluated in the Final

Environmental Statement (FES), which was issued in March 1978. The

original operating licenses for both Plant Hatch units allowed a

maximum reactor power level of 2436 MWt. Plant Hatch has already

received a 5 percent power uprate for each unit from the original

licensing bases of 2436 MWt to 2558 MWt, which were implemented

following the Unit 2 fall 1995 outage and the Unit 1 spring

[[Page 53474]]

1996 outage. An Environmental Assessment associated with the power

uprate was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 1995 (60 FR

38593). SNC has submitted an environmental evaluation supporting the

proposed extended power uprate action and provided a summary of its

conclusions concerning both the radiological and nonradiological

environmental impacts of the proposed action. Based on its independent

analyses and the evaluation performed by the licensee, the staff

concludes that the environmental impacts of the extended power uprate

are well bounded or encompassed by previously evaluated environmental

impacts and criteria established by the staff in the FES. Extended

power uprate can be implemented at Plant Hatch without making extensive

changes to plant systems that directly or indirectly interface with the

environment. No changes to State permits are required. A summary of the

nonradiological and radiological effects on the environment that may

result from the proposed amendments is provided herein.

Nonradiological Impacts

Terrestrial Impacts

Impacts on Land Use: The proposed extended power uprate will not

modify the land use at the site, as described in the FES. Neither

construction of new facilities nor the modification of existing

facilities, including buildings, access roads, parking facilities,

laydown areas, and onsite transmission and distribution equipment,

including power line rights-of-way, is needed to support the uprate or

operation after uprate. Extended power uprate will not significantly

affect material storage, including chemicals, fuels, and other

materials stored in aboveground and/or underground storage.

Cooling Tower Impacts: In the FES, the staff concluded that

operation of the Plant Hatch cooling towers would not be detrimental to

either the land or the vegetation in the vicinity of the plant.

Monitoring programs, including low altitude true and false color

photography, have not revealed any negative effects attributable to

salt deposition from cooling tower drift resulting from station

operation to date. The proposed extended power uprate will not increase

the circulating water flow; therefore, no increase in cooling tower

drift is expected.

The FES states that the climate at the site consists of mild, short

winters (average monthly minimum temperature of approximately 52

deg.F); therefore, icing conditions are rare and the probability of

icing on nearby roads is extremely low. Because circulating water flow

will not increase as a result of extended power uprate, cooling tower

drift will not increase and the impact of icing on trees, vegetation,

and roads will not increase. Therefore, the conclusions of the FES

relative to icing remain valid for the proposed extended power uprate.

A small increase in fogging potential due to operation of cooling

towers was noted in the FES but was determined to be insignificant. The

slight increase in heat load on the cooling towers from the proposed

extended power uprate is expected to result in a very slight increase

in the potential for fogging. However, this incremental increase is

expected to be insignificant and will not change the conclusions in the

FES.

After considering the small increase in heat load on the cooling

towers, the staff concludes that the incremental effects of fog

attributable to the proposed extended power uprate will be negligible

and will continue to be bounded by the FES. Other cooling tower

impacts, such as drift and icing, are not expected to change as a

result of the proposed extended power uprate.

Transmission Facility Impacts: No changes in existing transmission

line design and operation will result from the proposed extended power

uprate. No new requirements or changes to onsite transmission

equipment, operating transmission voltages, or offsite power systems

will result from implementation of the proposed extended power uprate.

The rise in generator output associated with extended power uprate

will produce a slight current and electromagnetic field (EMF) increase

in the onsite transmission line between the main generator and the

plant substation. The line is located entirely within the fenced,

licensee-controlled boundary of the plant, and neither members of the

public nor wildlife would be expected to be affected. Exposure to EMFs

from the offsite transmission system is not expected to increase

significantly and any such slight increases are not expected to change

the staff's conclusion in the FES that there are no significant

biological effects attributable to EMFs from high voltage transmission

lines associated with Plant Hatch.

Because Plant Hatch transmission lines are designed and constructed

in accordance with applicable shock prevention provisions of the

National Electric Safety Code, the slight increase in current

attributable to the proposed extended power uprate is not expected to

change the staff's conclusions in the FES that adequate protection is

provided against hazards from electrical shock.

Impacts on Terrestrial Biota: The proposed extended power uprate

will not change the land use as evaluated in the FES and will not

disturb the habitat of any terrestrial plant or animal species. The

conclusions reached by the staff in the FES relative to impact on

terrestrial ecology, including endangered and threatened plant and

animal species, remain valid for the proposed extended power uprate.

Aquatic Impacts

Surface Water: Extended power uprate is accomplished by increasing

the heat output of the reactor, thereby increasing steam flow to the

turbine, for which increased feedwater flow is needed. For the proposed

extended power uprate, the 22,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (50 cubic

feet per second) average withdrawal rate for one unit of Plant Hatch

assessed in the FES will remain unchanged. The increase in steam flow

resulting from the extended power uprate does increase the duty on the

main condenser and the resulting slight increase in evaporation from

the cooling towers will be balanced by a decrease in blowdown discharge

such that no increase in withdrawal is anticipated.

Groundwater: In the FES, the staff concluded that a minimal

quantity of groundwater (327 gpm, 0.471 million gallons per day (gpd))

will be withdrawn from two wells for normal two-unit operation and this

amount was not likely to significantly impact the regional aquifer.

Groundwater use at Plant Hatch is governed by a permit issued by the

Environmental Protection Division of the State of Georgia Department of

Natural Resources, which authorizes withdrawal of 1.1 million gpd

monthly average, and 0.550 million gpd annual average. Although the

values allowed by the groundwater withdrawal permit are somewhat

greater than the values evaluated in the FES, the typical groundwater

withdrawal rate for two-unit operation is 0.167 million gpd (116 gpm),

with a maximum value of 0.281 million gpd (195 gpm). The proposed

extended power uprate will not result in a significant increase in the

use of groundwater resources and will not significantly reduce the

margin to limits contained in the permit issued by the State. The

conclusions reached by the staff in the FES relative to groundwater use

remain valid for the proposed extended power uprate.

Intake Impacts: The impacts of operation of the river water intakes

include impingement of fish on the traveling screens at the intake

structure

[[Page 53475]]

and entrainment of phytoplankton, periphyton, drifting

macroinvertebrates, and fish eggs and larvae. The losses of impinged

and entrained organisms were assessed in the FES and were judged to be

insignificant, compared to overall populations in the Altamaha River.

Due to an increase in heat load on the cooling towers as a result of

extended power uprate, evaporative losses will increase. In order to

compensate for the increase in evaporative losses, cooling tower makeup

will be increased slightly and cooling tower blowdown will be decreased

by approximately 626 gpm. The additional incremental increase in makeup

is considered insignificant and will not significantly increase the

impacts of impingement and entrainment on aquatic biota in the Altamaha

River beyond those addressed in the FES.

Discharge Impacts: Impacts of station operation resulting from the

plant discharges include thermal and physical effects of cooling tower

basin blowdown and the effects of chemical discharges from serial-

numbered outfalls controlled by the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The increased thermal discharges

resulting from the proposed extended power uprate are expected to have

the effect of increasing the discharge temperature of cooling water

blowdown such that the temperature increase in the Altamaha River after

mixing would be less than 0.1 deg.F.

As described above, cooling tower blowdown is expected to decrease

by 626 gpm; therefore, the extended power uprate will not result in

increased impacts due to scour on aquatic macrobenthic organisms or to

increase turbidity in the Altamaha River in the vicinity of the plant

discharge.

Chemical usage and subsequent discharge to the environment are not

expected to change significantly as a result of implementing the

proposed extended power uprate. Cycles of concentration at which the

cooling towers operate will not change and no changes in the cooling

tower chemistry program will result from the extended power uprate.

Finally, no changes to the sanitary waste system or to the parameters

regulated by the NPDES permit are needed to accomplish the extended

power uprate. Therefore, the conclusions in the FES regarding chemical

discharges remain valid.

Socioeconomic Impacts

Physical Impacts: The staff has considered the potential for direct

physical impacts resulting from the proposed extended power uprate. The

proposed extended power uprate will be accomplished primarily by

changes in station operation, resulting in very few modifications to

the station facility. These limited modifications can be accomplished

without physical changes to transmission corridors, access roads, other

offsite facilities, or additional project-related transportation of

goods or materials. Therefore, no significant additional construction

disturbances causing noise, odors, vehicle exhaust, dust, vibration, or

shock from blasting are expected and the conclusions in the FES remain

valid.

Social and Economic Impacts: The staff has reviewed information

provided by the licensee regarding socioeconomic impacts. SNC is a

major employer in the community and the largest single contributor to

the local tax base. SNC personnel also contribute to the tax base by

payment of sales and property tax and many are involved in volunteer

work within the community. The proposed extended power uprate will not

significantly affect the size of the Plant Hatch workforce and will not

have a material effect upon the labor force required for future

outages. Because the plant modifications needed to implement the

extended power uprate will be minor, any increase in sales tax and

additional revenue to local and national business will be negligible

relative to the large tax revenues generated by Plant Hatch. It is

expected that improving the economic performance of Plant Hatch through

cost reductions and lower total bus bar costs per kWh will enhance the

value of Plant Hatch as a generating asset and lower the probability of

early plant retirement. Early plant retirement would have a significant

negative impact upon the local economy and the community as a whole.

The ability of the local economy to provide substitute tax revenues and

similar employment opportunities for SNC employees is limited and

serious reductions in public services, employment, income, business

revenues, and property values could result from early plant retirement,

although these reductions could be mitigated by decommissioning

activities in the short-term.

The staff has also evaluated the environmental impact of the

proposed extended power uprate on aesthetic resources and lands with

historical or archaeological significance and concludes that the

proposed action will not change aesthetic resources or affect lands

with historical or archeological significance.

Summary

In summary, the proposed extended power uprate will not result in a

significant change in nonradiological plant effluents or terrestrial or

socioeconomic impacts and will have no other nonradiological

environmental impact.

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Waste Treatment

Plant Hatch uses waste treatment systems designed to collect,

process, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might

contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner such that

discharges are in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20 and Appendix I to Part 50.

These radioactive waste treatment systems are discussed in the FES. The

proposed extended power uprate will not affect the environmental

monitoring of any of these waste streams or the radiological monitoring

requirements contained in licensing basis documents. The proposed

extended power uprate does not introduce any new or different

radiological release pathways and does not increase the probability of

an operator error or equipment malfunction that would result in an

uncontrolled radioactive release.

Gaseous Radioactive Waste

During normal operation, the gaseous effluent treatment systems

process and control the release of gaseous radioactive effluents to the

site environs, including small quantities of noble gases, halogens,

particulates, and tritium, such that routine offsite releases from

station operation are below the limits in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I

to Part 50 (10 CFR Part 20 includes the requirements of 40 CFR Part

190). The gaseous waste management systems include the offgas system

and various building ventilation systems. Assuming noble gas generation

rates and the radioactivity contribution from halogens, particulates,

and tritium are approximately proportional to the power increase (8

percent), a small increase in gaseous effluents due to extended power

uprate will occur. The staff has evaluated information provided by the

licensee and concludes that the estimated dose values will still be

below Appendix I requirements after the extended power uprate and the

dose impact will be a small increase (less than 8 percent) for the

gaseous pathway compared to the present analysis of record for the

plant.

Liquid Radioactive Waste

The liquid radwaste system is designed to process, and recycle to

the extent practicable, the liquid waste collected such that annual

radiation

[[Page 53476]]

doses to individuals from each unit resulting from routine liquid waste

discharges are maintained below the guidelines in 10 CFR Part 20 and 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Liquid effluents are continuously monitored

and discharges are terminated if effluents exceed preset radioactivity

levels. Extended power uprate conditions will not result in significant

increases in the volume of liquid from the various sources to the

liquid radwaste system. The single largest source of liquid and wet

solid waste is the backwash of the condensate demineralizers. With

extended power uprate, the average time between backwash and precoat

will be reduced slightly. The floor drain collection subsystem and the

waste collection subsystem both receive periodic inputs from a variety

of sources; however, neither subsystem is expected to experience a

significant increase in the total volume of liquid radwaste due to

operation at extended power uprate conditions.

During normal operation, treated high-purity radwastes are normally

routed to condensate storage for reuse. Treated floor drain wastes can

also be routed to condensate storage, to the extent practical,

consistent with reactor water inventory and reactor water quality

requirements. Treated floor drain and chemical wastes are discharged

into the cooling tower blowdown discharge pipe after being sampled to

ensure discharge pipe concentrations after dilution are within

applicable limits.

The activated corrosion products in liquid wastes are expected to

increase proportionally to extended power uprate (approximately 8

percent). However, the total volume of processed waste is not expected

to increase appreciably, since the only significant increase is due to

the more frequent backwashes of the condensate demineralizers. The

staff concludes that information submitted by the licensee shows that

there will be no significant dose increase in the liquid pathway

resulting from the proposed extended power uprate.

Solid Radioactive Waste

The solid radioactive radwaste system collects, monitors,

processes, packages, and provides temporary storage facilities for

radioactive solid wastes prior to offsite shipment and permanent

disposal. Plant Hatch has implemented procedures to assure that the

processing and packaging of solid radioactive waste is accomplished in

compliance with the Commission's regulations.

Wet Wastes: Wet wastes, consisting primarily of spent demineralizer

resins and filter sludges, are accumulated in phase separators and

waste sludge tanks, which serve as storage and batching tanks for the

wet solid radwaste system.

The largest volume contributors to radioactive solid waste are the

spent resin and filter sludges from the process wastes. Equipment

wastes from operation and maintenance activities, chemical wastes, and

reactor system wastes also contribute to solid waste generation.

Extended power uprate conditions may involve a slight increase in the

process wastes generated from the operation of the reactor cleanup

filter demineralizers, fuel pool filter demineralizers, and the

condensate filter demineralizers. More frequent reactor water cleanup

backwashes are expected to occur under extended power uprate conditions

due to water chemistry limits. Extended power uprate will not involve

changes in either reactor water cleanup flow rates or filter

performance.

The principle effect of extended power uprate upon the condensate

demineralizer system is increased condensate flow and, consequently,

the condensate vessel differential pressure limit being reached more

frequently, resulting in reduced run times. Without any modification,

the spent resin generation from the condensate demineralizers would be

expected to increase. However, to offset this, Plant Hatch is adopting

the use of pleated filter elements in the demineralizer vessels. Use of

pleated filters will double the run times to about 50 days using

current demineralizer flow rates. Also, use of pleated filters allows

precoating with less resin, resulting in a 50 to 60 percent reduction

in resin usage. In conjunction with the adoption of pleated filters,

Plant Hatch is installing an air surge system, which increases the

energy of the backwash, enhancing the ability to flush material out of

the filters and extending the life of demineralizer filters. These

modifications will serve to minimize the amount of wet radwaste. The

staff concludes that implementation of the proposed extended power

uprate is not likely to have a significant impact on the volume or

activity of wet radioactive solid wastes at Plant Hatch.

Dry Wastes: Dry wastes consist of air filters, miscellaneous paper

and rags from contaminated areas, contaminated clothing, tools and

equipment parts that cannot be effectively decontaminated, and solid

laboratory wastes. The activity of much of this waste is low enough to

permit manual handling. Dry wastes are collected in containers located

throughout the plant, compacted as practicable, and then sealed and

removed to a controlled-access enclosed area for temporary storage.

Because of its low activity, dry waste can be stored until enough is

accumulated to permit economical transportation to an offsite

processing facility or a burial ground for final disposal. The staff

concludes that implementation of the proposed extended power uprate

should not have a significant impact on the volume or activity of the

dry solid radioactive wastes at Plant Hatch.

Irradiated Reactor Components: This waste consists primarily of

spent reactor control rod blades, fuel channels, incore ion chambers,

and large pieces of equipment. Because of the high activation and

contamination levels, reactor equipment waste is stored in the spent

fuel storage pool to allow for sufficient radioactive decay before

removal to inplant or offsite storage and final disposal in shielded

containers or casks. Because of the mitigating effects of extended

burnup and increased U-235 burnup, implementing the extended power

uprate is not likely to have a significant impact on the number of

irradiated reactor components discharged from the reactor.

Dose Consideration

Inplant Radiation: Increasing the rated power at Plant Hatch may

result in a potential increase in radiation sources in the reactor

coolant system. The increased flow of reactor coolant and feedwater

needed for the increased power level may result in changing patterns of

erosion and corrosion in various locations in the reactor coolant

system. This may result in the shifting of corrosion products

throughout the reactor coolant system and a corresponding shift in dose

rates in the vicinity of reactor coolant piping and components. In

addition, the increased core average flux may result in an increase in

the concentration of N-16 and activated corrosion products in the

reactor coolant system.

The licensee has implemented several programs in the last few years

that will serve to counteract any potential increases in dose rates

resulting from a power uprate. The licensee initiated a zinc injection

program in 1990 and a cobalt reduction program in 1993. These programs,

which are intended to reduce the level of activated corrosion products

in the reactor coolant system and to inhibit the further buildup of

corrosion products in reactor coolant system piping, resulted in a

greater than 400 percent reduction in the reactor coolant cobalt-60 and

zinc-65 concentrations

[[Page 53477]]

between 1993 and 1997. The licensee also performed chemical

decontaminations on Unit 1 in 1991 and 1996 to reduce radiation fields

in the reactor auxiliary systems. As a result of the chemical

decontaminations and other initiatives described above, dose rates

surrounding certain reactor coolant system components were reduced by

as much as 40 percent.

To counteract any potential increases in plant doses due to the

increase in N-16 levels in the reactor coolant from a power uprate, the

licensee performed plant shielding reviews of potentially affected

plant areas. Those target areas identified were modified to maintain

radiation levels within acceptable levels.

Weekly surveillance data collected since 1990 indicates that the

actual reactor water fission and corrosion product activity levels at

Plant Hatch are approximately 5 percent of the activity levels assumed

in the Plant Hatch original licensing basis. In addition, the average

collective dose per reactor at Plant Hatch for the past 5 years has

been well under the 500 person-rem value contained in the FES. The 3-

year average collective dose per reactor at Plant Hatch has been

trending downwards since 1990. In recent years (1991-95), occupational

doses have averaged about 0.7 person-cSv (person-rem) per megawatt-

year, which is consistent with doses at other boiling water reactors.

On the basis of the preceding information, the staff concludes that

the expected annual collective dose for Plant Hatch, following the

proposed extended power uprate, will still be bounded by the dose

estimate contained in the FES.

Offsite Doses: The staff has reviewed SNC's offsite dose analysis

that was provided to demonstrate that Plant Hatch can meet the offsite

effluent release requirements of as low as reasonably achievable. The

staff has also reviewed actual liquid and gaseous effluent release

data, in conjunction with current dispersion/deposition data and

periodic land/population/biota usage survey information. It is not

likely that the doses to offsite individuals due to normal operational

liquid effluent releases will exceed the estimated liquid effluent dose

values currently outlined in the final safety analysis reports (FSARs)

for Plant Hatch. The doses from airborne effluents are calculated to be

increased from the calculated values in the FSARs by about 2.4 percent

for the total body and 7.3 percent for the child's thyroid but the

relevant dose criteria will be met. The staff concludes that the

estimated doses from both the liquid and gaseous release pathways

resulting from extended power uprate conditions are well within the

design objectives specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, and the

limits of 10 CFR Part 20.

Accident Consideration

The staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses and has performed

confirmatory calculations to verify the acceptability of the licensee's

calculated doses under accident conditions. The staff concludes that

the proposed extended power uprate will not significantly increase the

probability or consequences of accidents and will not result in a

significant increase in the radiological environmental impact of Plant

Hatch under accident conditions. The results of the staff's

calculations will be presented in the safety evaluation to be issued

with the license amendments.

Fuel Cycle and Transportation Impacts

Extended power uprate is expected to involve an increase in the

bundle average enrichment of the fuel. The environmental impacts of the

fuel cycle and of transportation of fuel and wastes are described in

Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An

additional NRC assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as

corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the

applicability of Tables S-3 and S-4 to higher burnup cycles and

concluded that there is no significant change in environmental impact

for fuel cycles with uranium enrichments up to 5 weight percent U-235

and burnups less than 60 GWd/MTU from the parameters evaluated in

Tables S-3 and S-4. Because the fuel enrichment for the extended power

uprate will not exceed 5 weight percent U-235 and the rod average

discharge exposure will not exceed 60 GWd/MTU, the environmental

impacts of the proposed extended power uprate will remain bounded by

these conclusions and are not significant.

Summary

In summary, the proposed extended power uprate will not

significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents,

will not introduce any new radiological release pathways, will not

result in a significant increase in occupational or public radiation

exposure, and will not result in significant additional fuel cycle

environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there

are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded that there is no significant

environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any

alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be

evaluated. However, as an alternative to the proposed action, the staff

did consider denial of the proposed action. Denial of the proposed

action would result in no change in the current environmental impacts

of plant operation but would restrict operation to the currently

licensed power level. The environmental impacts of the proposed action

and the alternative 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

Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on September 24, 1998, the

staff consulted with the Georgia State official, James Setser of the

Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Final Finding of No Significant Impact

The staff has reviewed the proposed extended power uprate for Edwin

I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, relative to the requirements set

forth in 10 CFR Part 51. On August 27, 1998, the staff published a

draft Environmental Assessment in the Federal Register (63 FR 45874)

for public comment. No comments were received.

Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action 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 action.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the

licensee's letter dated August 8, 1997, as supplemented by letters

dated March 9, May 6, July 6, July 31, September 4, and September 11,

1998, and the information submitted by letter dated April 17, 1997, in

advance of the licensee's application, all of which are available for

public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Appling County Public Library, 301 City

Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.

[[Page 53478]]

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of September 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98-26559 Filed 10-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P