ML20203H372
| ML20203H372 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1998 |
| From: | Berkow H NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203H379 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803030207 | |
| Download: ML20203H372 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
7590-01 P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SOUTHERN NUCLFAR OPERATING COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425 VOGTLE ELECTh,C GENERATING PLANI ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) update requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.71(e)(4), for Facility Opera * ; License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF 81 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., et al. (the licensee) for operation of the Vogtle l
l Nuclear Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, located in Burke County, Georgia.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Pronosed Action:
'I he proposed action would allow an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to u - VEGP, Units 1 and 2, FSAR.
Under the proposed exemption, the licensee would submit FSAR updates to the single, unifed FSAR for the two units that comprise VEGP, within 6 months following the VEGP Unit 2 refueling outage, not to exceed 24 months from the last submittal.
Tha proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated January 23,1998.
9003030207 780224 PDR ADOCK 05000424 p
2-The Need for the Prona==d Ar+ian The proposed action would provide an exemption to the requiremo.nts of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), which requires licensees to submit updates to their FSAR within 6 months after
- each refueling outage providing that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since VEGP, Units 1 and 2, share a common FSAR, the licensee must update the i
same document within 6 months after a refueling outage for either unit. Allowing the exemption would maintain the FSAR current within 24 months of the last revision and still would not exceed a 24-month interval for submission of the 10 CFR 50.5g design change report for either-unit.
Environmentalimoacts of the Pranaead Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that issuance of the proposed exemption to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) will have no environmental imprd. The change will not increase the probability or consequen::es of acculents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents thait may be reisased offsite,.and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, 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 does involve 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.
c
.s Altemativen to the Prah AMinn:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any altematives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an attemative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed schon. Denial of the application would result in no change in current en*.#enmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed action and the attemative action are similar.
Altemative Use of Resources-This acten does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the VEGP, " Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of Vogtle Eleuric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2," NUREG-1087, dated March 1985.
'Anencies and Persons Consultad:
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 10,1998, the staff consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. J. Setzer, of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 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.
4 For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's !atter dated January 23,1998, which is available for public inspection at the Commission't Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public docurnent room located at the Burke County Library,412 Fourth Street, 'Naynesboro, Georgia.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 1998.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 0l Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate ll-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/Il Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation e
e
_ _ _ _