ML20115H267

Comment Supporting Final Rule 10CFR51, Environ Review of Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses

ML20115H267
Person / Time
Site:	Hatch, Vogtle
Issue date:	07/08/1996
From:	Beckham J GEORGIA POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
FRN-56FR47016, FRN-61FR28467, RULE-PR-51 56FR47016-00011, 56FR47016-11, NUDOCS 9607230016
Download: ML20115H267 (4)

Text

_ . .

Georgia Power Company 40 inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 nnCngg Telephone 205 677-7279 vv K USFRC

$c'e "r'es$e*n*' $ciear *% JUL 16 Pl2 :13 GeorgiaPower Hatch Project te souttun ebctnc r,ste July 8, i g ;g g p g., y DCCXE i!% < ,+C Docket Nos. 50-321 50-424 a;la.-

HL-5203 50-366 50-425 LCV-0844 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk ROPOS  % $.

Washington, D. C. 20555 (SbFR 470ll,)

Comments on FR Comnent

• I \

" Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses" (61 Federal Register 28467 dated June 5.1996)

Dear Sir:

Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule " Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses," published in the Federal Register on June 5,1996. In accordance with request for comments, Georgia Power Company is in agreement with the NEI comments which are to be provided to the NRC. Should you have any questions, please advise.

Sincerely,

/f k!

J. T. Beckham, Jr.

l JTB/JTD 9607230016 960708 PDR PR 51 56FR47016 PDR l

\ .

PR Comrnu)-B4l DSto '

t U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page Two July 8, 1996 cc: Georgia Power Company C. K. McCoy, Vice President - Plant Vogtle J. B. Beasley, General Manager - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant H. L. Sumner, Jr., General Manager - Plant Hatch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch ,

L. L. Wheeler, Licensing Project Manager, Vogtle U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator B. L. Holbrook, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch C. R. Ogle, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle l

l l

I l

HL-5203 LCV-0844 LRS File: R.04.02 1

-. . ~.. .-.~ . - - . - - . . . . - . - _ _ .. . . - . . . . . - - - .. - ..

i Summary ,

i The NRC is amending 10 CFR Part 51 " Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses." The amendment defines those environmental impacts for which'a generic analysis has been performed that will be adopted in plant-specific reviews for license renewal and those environmental impacts for which plant s'pecific analyses are to be performed.

i l The following environmental impacts will require site-specific analysis as part of license renewal:

1. Surface Water Quality -

2. Aquatic Ecology

3. Groundwater Use and Quality l

4. Terrestrial Ecology 5 Threatened or Endangered Species

6. Air Quality

7. Human Health

! 8. Socioeconomic

! 9. The Uranium Fuel Cycle and Solid Waste Management

10. Accidents

11. Environmental Justice The results of the amendment should be a more focused and therefore a l more effective NEPA review for license renewal.

NEl comments on the amendment were received July 3,1996, and are l

l attached for reference. The areas of comment / concern identified by NEl are i as follows:

1. Transportation The requirements for review of transportation issues describe in the rule are unclear. NEl recommends that the environmentalimpact of transportation of spent nuclear fuei and waste be reclassified as a Category 1 impact.

Category 1 impacts are those for which a generic conclusion on the impact has been reached for all affected nuclear power plants.

L 2. Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives (SAMDA)

The NRC has indicated that credit can only be given for IPEs included in the l

final environmental impact statement or related supplement. This would l require all but a few plants to review SAMDAs during a licensing renewal period. The supporting documentation for the final rule acknowledges that all plants have submitted IPE's and will submit IPEEEs. NEl recommends that NRC make a generic finding that consideration of SAMDAs is not required for any plant that has completed the IPE process and received a safety evaluation report.

I

-_-- - . . . . - . . _ - . _ . . . ~ . _ . - - . . - - . - - - . - - . - . . -

I i

i a

i

3. Electromagnetic Fields The GEIS does not contain a category for the effects of electromagnetic fields. As a result, it is not clear whether a contention may be raised on this .

j issue in a license renewal proceeding. NEl recommends that the NRC make a l Category 1 finding on this issue.

4. Waste t The Federal Register notice containing the final Part 51 rule request feedback  !

i l on the treatment of low-level waste storage and disposal impacts, the l cumulative radiological effects from the uranium fuel cycle, and the effects

.from the disposal of high level waste and spent fuel. NEl states that the GEIS appropriately _ addresses the issues related to nuclear waste and is more than adequate to permit the decision make to make an informed decision, i and thereby satisfies NEPAs rule of reason. l 1

l 1

l i

f l

l l

)

1  ;

-