[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 43 (Monday, March 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8308-8310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4942]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425]
Georgia Power Company, et al.; Vogtle Electric Generating 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.
NPF-68 and NPF-81, issued to Georgia Power Company, et al. (the
licensee) for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
(Vogtle), Units 1 and 2, located at the licensee's site in Burke
County, Georgia.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application
dated May 1, 1995, as supplemented by letters dated August 3 and 9,
September 22, November 20, and December 21, 1995, and January 26 and
30, 1996. The proposed action will replace the existing Vogtle
Technical Specifications (TS) in their entirety with a new set of TS
based on Revision 1 to NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications
Westinghouse Plants,'' and the existing VEGP TS.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of TS. The ``NRC Interim
Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear
Power Reactors,'' (52 FR 3788, February 6, 1987), and later the Final
Policy Statement (58 FR 39132, July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To
facilitate the development of individual improved TS, each reactor
vendor owners group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS (STS).
For Westinghouse plants, the STS are published as NUREG-1431, and this
document was the basis for the new Vogtle TS. The NRC Committee to
Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the STS and made note of
the safety merits of the STS and indicated its support of conversion to
the STS by operating plants.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1431 and on
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TS. Emphasis
is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and
understanding. The Bases section has
[[Page 8309]]
been significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the purpose
and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1431,
portions of the existing TS were also used as the basis for the
improved TS (ITS). Plant-specific issues (unique design features,
requirements, and operating practices) were discussed at length with
the licensee, and generic matters with the OG.
The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four
general categories, as follows:
1. Non-technical (administrative) changes, which were intended to
make the ITS easier to use for plant operations personnel. They are
purely editorial in nature or involve the movement or reformatting of
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the
Vogtle TS has undergone these types of changes. In order to ensure
consistency, the NRC staff and the licensee have used NUREG-1431 as
guidance to reformat and make other administrative changes.
2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in
the existing Vogtle TS but did not meet the criteria set forth in the
Final Policy Statement for inclusion in the TS. In general, the
proposed relocation of items in the Vogtle TS to the Final Safety
Analysis Report (FSAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, procedures
and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the Westinghouse STS (NUREG-
1431). Once these items have been relocated by removing them from the
TS to licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise them under
the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC staff-approved control
mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural means to control
changes.
3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed Vogtle
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding
requirements in the existing Vogtle TS, or are additional restrictions
that are not in the existing Vogtle TS but are contained in NUREG-1431.
Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a Limiting
Condition of Operation (LCO) on plant equipment that is not required by
the present TS to be operable; more restrictive requirements to restore
inoperable equipment; and more restrictive surveillance requirements.
4. Less restrictive requirements, which are relaxations of
corresponding requirements in the existing Vogtle TS that provide
little or no safety benefit and place unnecessary burdens on the
licensee. These relaxations were the result of generic NRC actions or
other analyses. They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for
Vogtle as will be described in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be
issued with the license amendments, which will be noticed in the
Federal Register.
In addition to the changes described above, the licensee proposed
certain changes to the existing TS that deviated from the STS in NUREG-
1431. Each of these additional proposed changes is described in the
licensee's application and in the staff's Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity
for a Hearing (60 FR 46633). These changes have been justified on a
case-by-case basis for Vogtle as will be described in the staff's
Safety Evaluation to be issued with the license amendments.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological
effluents.
Changes that are administrative in nature have been found to have
no effect on the technical content of the TS, and are acceptable. The
increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are
expected to improve the operator's control of the plant in normal and
accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements to licensee-controlled documents does
not change the requirements themselves. Future changes to these
requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which ensures continued maintenance of
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1431 and the Final Policy
Statement, and, therefore, are acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
be acceptable and are likely to enhance the safety of plant operations.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burdens on the licensee, their
removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic NRC action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the OG and found to be acceptable for Vogtle. Generic
relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 as well as proposed deviations from
NUREG-1431 have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found
to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revision to the TS was found to provide
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided so that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
These TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences
of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluent
that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in
the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action involves features located entirely within the restricted area as
defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological plant
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny
the request for amendments. Such action would not reduce the
environmental impacts of plant operations.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the
operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 8, 1996, the
staff consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. James Hardeman of
the Environmental Protection Division, Georgia 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
[[Page 8310]]
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 amendments.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's
letter dated May 1, 1995, and supplemental letters dated August 3 and
9, September 22, November 20, and December 21, 1995, and January 26 and
30, 1996, 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
Burke County Library, 412 Fourth Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of February 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard A. Wiens,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-4942 Filed 3-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
