[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