[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29485]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 30, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366]

 

Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 
Georgia Power Co., et al.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2

    This U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-57 and NPF-5, issued to Georgia Power Company (GPC or the 
licensee), for operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 
and 2, located in Appling County, Georgia.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendments will replace the existing Technical 
Specifications (TS) in their entirety with the Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS). The proposed action is in accordance with the 
licensee's amendment request dated February 25, 1994, and supplemented 
July 8, August 8 and August 31, September 23, October 19, and November 
1, 1994.

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 dated February 6, 1987) and later the 
Final Policy Statement, formalized this need. To facilitate the 
development of individual ITS, each reactor vendor owners group (OG) 
and the NRC staff developed standard technical specifications. For 
General Electric (GE) plants, the standard TS (STS) are found in NUREG-
1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General Electric Plants, 
BWR/4,'' dated September 1992, which formed the basis of the Hatch ITS. 
The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the 
STS, made not of its safety merits, and indicated its support of 
conversion by operating plants to the STS.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1433 and on 
guidance provided in the 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 been significantly expanded to 
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each 
specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, portions of the existing TS 
were also used as the basis for the ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique 
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed 
at length with the licensee, and generic matters were discussed with 
the licensee, GE, and other OGs.
    The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four 
general categories, as follows:
    Non-Technical (administrative) changes were intended to make the 
ITS easier to use for plant operations personnel. They are purely 
editorial in nature or involve the movement or reformat of requirements 
without affecting technical content. Every section of the Hatch TS has 
undergone these types of changes. In order to ensure consistency, the 
NRC staff and GPC have used NUREG-1433 as guidance to reformat and make 
other administrative changes.
    Relocation of requirements includes items that were in the existing 
Hatch TS, but did not meet the criteria set forth in the Policy 
Statement for inclusion in TS.
    In general, the proposed relocation of items in the Hatch TS to the 
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), appropriate plant-specific 
programs, procedures, and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the GE STS, 
NUREG-1433. Once these items have been relocated by removing them from 
the TS to other 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.
    More restrictive requirements are those proposed Hatch ITS items 
that are either more conservative than corresponding requirements in 
the existing Hatch TS, or are additional restrictions which are not in 
the existing Hatch TS, but are contained in NUREG-1433. Examples of 
more restrictive requirements include: placing a Limiting Condition of 
Operation (LCO) on plant equipment which is not required by the present 
TS to be operable; more restrictive requirements to restore inoperable 
equipment; and more restrictive surveillance requirements.
    Less restrictive requirements are relaxations of corresponding 
requirements in the existing Hatch TS which provided little or no 
safety benefit or placed unnecessary burden 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 Hatch as described 
in the Safety Evaluation to be issued with the license amendment, which 
will be noticed in the Federal Register.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
revision to the TS. Changes which are administrative in nature have 
been found to have no effect on 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 other 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 assure continued maintenance of 
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in 
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1433 and the Policy 
Statements, and, therefore, to be acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
be acceptable.
    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 burden 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 Hatch. Generic 
relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 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 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 an 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 TS 
amendments.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted 
areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological 
plant effluent and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.

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 the amendments would be to deny 
the amendment request. Such action would not enhance the protection of 
the environment.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of resources not considered 
previously in the Final Environmental Statement for the Hatch Nuclear 
Plant, Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with the State of Georgia regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action.

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 amendment.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
licensee's submittals dated February 25, as supplemented July 8, August 
8 and 31, September 23, October 19, and November 1, 1994. The 
submittals are available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room located at 
the Appling County Public Library, 301 City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia 
31513.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of November 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Louis L. Wheeler,
Acting Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-29485 Filed 11-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M