[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