[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2162-2164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-440]
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., et al.; Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-58, issued to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company,
Centerior Service Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company,
Pennsylvania Power Company, and Toledo Edison Company (the licensee),
for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, located in
Lake County, Ohio.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will replace the existing Technical
Specifications (TS), in their entirety, with the Improved Technical
Specification (ITS). The proposed action is in accordance with the
licensee's amendment request dated December 16, [[Page 2163]] 1993, as
supplemented November 7, 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,'' (Federal Register 52 FR 3788, 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 NUREG-1433
for BWR/4 reactor facilities and NUREG-1434 for BWR/6 facilities.
NUREG-1434 formed the basis of the Perry ITS. The NRC Committee to
Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the STS and made note of
the safety merits of the STS 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-1434, 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-1434, 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 with the GE and other
OGs.
The proposed changes from the existing TS can be grouped into four
general categories, as follows:
1. Non-technical (administrative) changes, which 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
Perry TS has undergone these types of changes. In order to ensure
consistency, the NRC staff and the licensee have used NUREG-1434 as
guidance to reformat and make other administrative changes.
2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in
the existing Perry 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 Perry TS to the Updated Safety Analysis
report (USAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, procedures and ITS
Bases, follows the guidance of the BWR/6 STS, NUREG-1434. 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.
3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed Perry
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding
requirements in the existing Perry TS, or are additional restrictions,
which are not in the existing Perry TS, but are contained in NUREG-
1434. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a
Limiting Conditions for 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.
4. Less restrictive requirements, which are relaxations of
corresponding requirements in the existing Perry TS, which provided
little or no safety benefit, and placed unnecessary burden on the
licensee. These relaxations were the result of generic NRC action or
other analyses. They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for
Perry, 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 assures continued maintenance of
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1434 and the Policy Statement,
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 Perry.
Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1434 have also been reviewed by
the NRC staff and have been found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revision to the TS has been 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
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any 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
amendment.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted
areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. It does not affect non-radiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological
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 amendment, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to the amendment 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 Perry Nuclear
Power Plant, Unit 1. [[Page 2164]]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with the State of Ohio 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 amendment.
For futher details with respect to this proposed action, see the
licensee's letters dated December 16, 1993 (PY-CEI/NRR-1732 L), and
November 7, 1994 (PY-CEI/NRR-1880 L). These letters 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street,
Perry, Ohio 44081.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of December 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leif J. Norrholm,
Director, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-318 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
