[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34491-34493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16746]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 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 Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 
et al. (the licensee), for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating 
Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Burke County, 
Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would change the common VEGP Technical 
Specifications to allow an increase in the Unit 1 spent fuel storage 
capacity from 288 to 1476 fuel assemblies. The increase in spent fuel 
storage capacity is achieved by replacing the existing spent fuel 
storage racks, a process referred to herein as ``reracking.'' The 
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for 
license amendments dated September 4, 1997, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 20, 1997, May 19 and June 12, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The VEGP spent fuel pools (SFPs) are operated as a single facility 
and accept spent fuel from both Units 1 and 2. The VEGP Unit 2 spent 
fuel pool has a storage capacity of 2098 fuel assemblies. Under current 
conditions, the SFPs will lose the capacity for a full-core off-load 
(193 fuel assemblies) in the year 2005. There are no independent 
commercial spent fuel storage facilities operating in the U.S., nor are 
there any domestic reprocessing facilities; therefore, the projected 
loss of storage capacity in the VEGP SFPs would affect the licensee's 
ability to operate VEGP. The proposed amendments are needed to ensure 
the capability of full-core off-load until the year 2015.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological Impacts
    VEGP has waste treatment systems designed to collect and process 
waste that may contain radioactive material. The radioactive waste 
treatment systems were evaluated in the ``Final Environmental Statement 
Related to the Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant,'' NUREG-
1087, March 1985. The SFP cooling and purification system is designed 
to remove the decay heat generated by stored spent fuel assemblies and 
to clarify and purify the water to permit unencumbered access to the 
plant fuel storage area and maintain optical clarity of the SFP water.
Liquid Radioactive Waste
    It is not expected that there will be a significant increase in the 
liquid release of radionuclides from the plant as a result of the SFP 
reracking modifications. The SFP cooling and purification system 
operates as a closed system. The SFP demineralizer resin removes 
soluble radioactive materials from the SFP water. A small increase in 
activity on the filters and demineralizers may occur during the 
installation of the new racks because of the more frequent fuel 
shuffling and underwater pressure washing of the old racks during 
removal. However, the amount of radioactivity released to the 
environment as a result of the proposed reracking is expected to be 
negligible.
Solid Radioactive Waste
    The existing spent fuel racks in the VEGP Unit 1 SFP will be 
removed from the site by a salvage company. After usable material has 
been salvaged, the remainder will be volume reduced and disposed of at 
the Barnwell, South Carolina, facility. In a worst-case scenario, with 
no salvageable material and no volume reduction, the resulting material 
would represent 44 percent of the expected solid waste volume 
associated with VEGP Units 1 and 2 for 1998; however, this volume is 
not significant when viewed over the 40-year operational lifetime of 
the VEGP facility.
    In addition to the spent fuel assemblies themselves, the only other 
solid radioactive waste generated by the SFP is the SFP polisher resin, 
which is used for water clarity. As indicated in the licensee's 
submittal of September 4, 1997, these resins are replaced approximately 
once per refueling cycle. No additional spent resins are expected to be 
generated by the pool cleanup system as a result of the expanded spent 
fuel storage capability; therefore, no significant increase in the 
volume of solid radioactive waste associated with these resins is 
expected with the proposed amendments.
Radioactive Material Released to the Atmosphere
    The only radioactive gas of significance that could be attributable 
to storing additional spent fuel assemblies for a longer period of 
time, made possible as a result of the proposed reracking, would be the 
noble gas radionuclide krypton-85 (Kr-85). Experience has demonstrated 
that after spent fuel has decayed 4 to 6 months, there is no longer a 
significant release of fission products, including Kr-85, from stored 
spent fuel containing cladding defects. The licensee has stated that in 
the past 2 years, the Kr-85 concentrations measured from the fuel 
storage area ventilation release point have been negligible and the 
licensee expects that enlarging the storage capacity of the SFP will 
have no effect on the average annual quantities of Kr-85 released to 
the atmosphere.
    Iodine-131 released from spent fuel assemblies to the SFP water 
will not be significantly increased as a result of the expansion of the 
fuel storage capacity since the iodine-131 inventory in the fuel will 
decay to negligible levels between refuelings.
    Most of the tritium in the SFP water results from activation of 
boron and lithium in the primary coolant during power operation. A 
relatively small amount of tritium is produced during reactor operation 
by the fission process within the reactor fuel. The subsequent 
diffusion of the tritium through the fuel and cladding represents a 
small contribution to the total amount of tritium in the SFP water. 
Tritium releases from the fuel assemblies occur mainly during reactor 
operation and, to a limited extent, shortly after shutdown. Thus, 
expanding the SFP capacity will not increase the tritium concentration 
in the SFP.
    Most airborne releases of tritium and iodine from nuclear power 
plants result during refuelings from evaporation of reactor coolant, 
which contains tritium and iodine in higher concentrations than in the 
SFP. The storage of additional spent fuel assemblies in the SFP is not 
expected to significantly increase the SFP bulk water temperature, and, 
therefore, evaporation rates from the SFP are not expected to 
significantly increase. Consequently, it is not expected that there 
will be any significant change in the annual release of tritium or 
iodine as a result of the proposed modifications from that previously 
evaluated in NUREG-1087.

[[Page 34492]]

Occupational Doses
    The licensee estimates that the increased number of fuel assemblies 
stored in the Unit 1 SFP may result in a small increase in doses in the 
areas adjacent to the sides of the SFP, although it will not be enough 
to change any existing radiation zone designations. To minimize any 
potential dose rate increases from the increased storage of spent fuel, 
the licensee plans to control the placement of freshly discharged fuel 
so that it is not placed in SFP rack positions adjacent to the sides of 
the SFP. Dose rates on the fuel pool level are primarily due to 
radionuclides in the pool water. During normal operations, dose rates 
in this area are generally 2.5 mrem/hr or less. The staff finds these 
dose rates to be acceptable and in accordance with SFP dose rates at 
other plants.
    The licensee will constantly monitor the doses to the workers 
during the reracking operation using electronic personnel dosimetry. 
Each diver will be monitored using multiple teledosimetry devices. 
These teledosimetry devices will transmit diver dose and dose rate data 
that will be continuously monitored adjacent to the SFP. Cameras will 
be used to monitor the movements of the divers. The licensee will use 
continuous air samplers when there is a potential for airborne activity 
in the SFP area during the modifications. In addition, the plant 
effluent radiation monitoring system will monitor any gaseous releases.
    The total occupational dose to plant workers as a result of the 
reracking operation is estimated to be approximately 4.3 person-rem. 
This dose estimate is based on the licensee's detailed review of the 
anticipated work activities, their duration, and expected dose rates 
associated with each of the activities related to the SFP reracking. 
The upcoming reracking operation at Vogtle Unit 1 will follow detailed 
procedures prepared with full consideration of as low as is reasonably 
achievable (ALARA) principles. On the basis of its review of the 
proposed action, the staff concludes that the Vogtle Unit 1 SFP rerack 
modification can be performed in a manner that will ensure that doses 
to workers will be maintained ALARA. The estimated dose of 4.3 person-
rem to perform the proposed SFP rerack is a small fraction of the 
annual collective dose accrued at Vogtle and, therefore, the staff 
finds this dose to be acceptable.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Transportation
    The environmental impacts on the uranium fuel cycle and 
transportation resulting from the use of higher enrichment fuel and 
extended irradiation were published in NUREG/CR-5009, ``Assessment of 
the Use of Extended Burnup Fuels in Light Water Power Reactors,'' 
February 1988, and discussed in the staff's Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact published in the Federal Register 
on February 29, 1988 (53 FR 6040). The staff concluded that no 
significant adverse effects will be generated by increasing the burnup 
levels as long as the maximum rod-average burnup level of any fuel rod 
is no greater than 60 Gwd/MtU. The staff also stated that the 
environmental impacts summarized in Tables S-3 and S-4 for a burnup 
level of 33 Gwd/MtU are conservative and bound the corresponding 
impacts for burnup levels up to 60 Gwd/MtU and uranium-235 enrichments 
up to 5 weight percent. Since the proposed amendment does not involve 
an increase in the enrichment or burnup of fuel utilized at VEGP, the 
staff concludes that there is no significant radiological environmental 
impact associated with the proposed expansion of the spent fuel storage 
capacity at VEGP Unit 1 or with the uranium fuel cycle or 
transportation.
Accident Considerations
    In the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report, the licensee evaluated 
the possible consequences of the following three hypothetical accidents 
involving fuel in the SFP: a fuel-handling accident in the fuel-
handling building; a fuel-handling accident in the containment with the 
airlock closed; and a fuel-handling accident in the containment with 
the airlock open. The licensee reevaluated these hypothetical accidents 
to determine the thyroid and whole-body doses at the exclusion area 
boundary, in the low-population zone, and in the control room.
    On the basis of the review of the licensee's reevaluation, the NRC 
staff concludes that the proposed reracking of the Vogtle Unit 1 SFP 
will not result in an increase in the doses from any of these 
hypothetical accidents.
Nonradiological Impact
    The proposed amendments do not modify land use at the site; no new 
facilities or laydown areas are needed to support the rerack or 
operation after rerack; therefore, the proposed amendments do not 
affect land use or land with historical or archeological sites.
    The increased spent fuel inventory results in a minor bulk pool 
temperature increase. This minor increase in temperature results in a 
minor increase in the pool water evaporation rate. The licensee's 
submittal of September 4, 1997, indicates that the effects of the 
increased temperature and evaporation rates are within the capacity of 
the existing fuel-handling building heating, ventilation, and air 
conditioning system. The total heat load from spent fuel cooling 
dissipated to the environment represents 2.5 percent of the total 
rejected plant heat.
    The proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant 
effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System permit are needed. The proposed action does not 
result in any significant changes to land use or water use, or result 
in any significant changes to the quantity or quality of effluents; no 
effects on endangered or threatened species or on their habitat are 
expected.
    The proposed action will not change the method of generating 
electricity or the method of handling any influents from the 
environment or nonradiological effluents to the environment. Therefore, 
no changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts 
are expected as a result of the amendments.

Summary

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. 
The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences 
of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents 
that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in 
the allowable individual or cumulative occupational or offsite 
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.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of

[[Page 34493]]

the application would result in no change in current environmental 
impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the 
alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in NUREG-1087.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 26, 1998, the staff 
consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. J. Setzer of the 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 
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.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated September 4, 1997, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 20, 1997, May 19 and June 12, 1998, 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 19th day of June 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-16746 Filed 6-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P