ML20212G402
| ML20212G402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1987 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212G406 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701200410 | |
| Download: ML20212G402 (4) | |
Text
.
g 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GEORGIA POWER COMPANY OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC AUTHORITY OF GEORGIA CITY OF DALTON, GEORGIA DOCKET NO. 50-424 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of exemptions from the requirements of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 and 10 CFR 50.34(b)(2)(1) as it pertains to General Design Criteria (GDC) 2, 61, and 62 to Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, and the City of Dalton, Georgia (the licensee) for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 1 located at the licensee's site in Burke County, Georgia.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Actions:
Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 states'" Air locks opened during periods when containment integrity is not required by the plant's Technical Specifications shall be tested at the j
end of such period at not less than P,."
The exemption to this paragraph would l
relax the requirement for air lock leakage testing in that such a test would not be necessary'before entering mode 4 each time that an air lock has been opened in mode 5 or mode 6.
This exemption would apply to situations when the periodic 6-month test requirement of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(1) and the 3-day test requirement of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(iii) are current, no maintenar.cc B701200410 870113 PDR ADOCK 05000424 l
L has been performed on the air lock, and the air lock is properly sealed.
Whenever maintenance has been performed on an air lock, the requirbments of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(iil must still be met. The staff's technical evaluation of this request was published in Section 6.2.6 of the Vogtle Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1137, June 1985). This exemption is responsivt to the licensee's request for exemption which is set out in the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report.
The schedular exemption.to 10 CFR 50.34(b)(2)(1) as it pertains to GDC 2, 61, and 62 will allow the use of the spent fuel pool racks for initial core loading under dry conditions before determination of seismic adequacy of the redesigned racks. The schedular exemption will apply to that time period through approval of the seismic adequacy of the racks and before irradiated fuel is stored in the racks. The staff's technical evaluation of this request will be published in Supplement 5 to the Vogtle Safety Evaluation Report sche-duled for issuance in January 1987. This exemption is responsive to the licens,ee's reauest for exemption dated December 29, 1986.
TheNeedfortheProposedActiog: The proposed exemption to Paragraph 1
III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 is needed because this requirement is overly restrictive and would slow the process of returning to operation.
The schedular exemption to 10 CFR 50.34(bl(2)(1) is needed to allow the licensee to load fuel and initiate plant operation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions: With regard to potential radiological impacts to the general public, the proposed exemptions involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFP Part 20. They do not affect the potential for or consequences of radiological accident and do not affect radiological plant effluents. The exemptions have
i
_3_
no effect on non-radiological impacts of facility operation. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental-impacts asso-ciated with the proposed exemptions.
Alternative to the Proposed Actions: Because we have concluded that the environ-mental effects of the proposed actinns are negligible, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative in each case would be to deny the requested exemptions. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility or delay licensing.
Alternative Use of Resources: These actions involve no use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements (construction per-mit and operating license) for. the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and no other agencies or persons were consulted.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemptions.
Based upon the environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
- l
. - ~ - -
0 a
\\
4 For details with respect to these actions, see the request for schedular exemption dated December 29, 1986, which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W, Washington, D. C.,
and at the Burke County Public Library, 4th Street, Waynesboro, Georgia.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 9th day of January 1987.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b
r i
I
'3.gJ.'Yo
- gblood, irector g
PWR Pro ct Direct rate #4 i
Division of PWR Licensing-A 4
O O
_.