[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17886-17887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9393]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]
Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2 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 Nos.
DPR-14 and DPR-22, issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company
(PP&L) (the licensee), for the operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located at the licensee's site in
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will add to the current SSES Technical
Specifications (TSs) (Special Test Exception Section 3.10.7 and
3.10.8), the Improved Technical Specifications Sections (ITS) 3.10.3
and 3.10.4 in a modified format and with applicable cross references.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment
request dated February 11, 1997.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of TSs. The ``NRC Interim
Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear
Power Reactors,'' (52 FR 3788, February 6, 1987) and later the Final
Policy Statement (58 FR 39132, July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To
facilitate the development of individual ITS, each reactor vendor
owners group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS (STS). For
General Electric (GE) plants, the STS are NUREG-1433 for BWR/4 reactor
facilities and NUREG-1434 for BWR/6 facilities. NUREG-1433 formed the
basis of the SSES 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 to the STS by operating plants.
Description of the Proposed Change
The February 11, 1997 submittal requested that two sections be
approved prior to the staff approval of the entire ITS to adopt
Sections 3.10.3 and 3.10.4 of the ITS into the current TS Special Test
Exception Sections 3.10.3 and 3.10.4. This change will permit control
rod testing during refueling outages. The only creditable accident
associated with control rod testing during the refuel outage is the
``Rod Withdrawal Error--Low Power'' and is addressed in Section 15.4.1
of SSES Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
The February 11, 1997 request is part of a larger amendment request
submitted on August 1, 1996. The requests are based on NUREG-1433 and
on guidance provided in the above-referenced Policy Statement. If
granted, the amendments would completely rewrite, reformat, and
streamline the existing TSs. Emphasis is placed on human factors
principles to improve clarity and understanding. The Bases section
would be significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the
purpose
[[Page 17887]]
and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1433,
portions of the existing TSs 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 OGs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
As stated above, the only plausible consequence of the proposed
action is a rod withdrawal error during low power. The effects of such
an error were analyzed in ``Rod Withdrawal Error-Low Power,'' Section
15.4.1 of the UFSAR. This analysis indicates that withdrawal of a
single rod during refueling is insufficient to cause criticality and
thus no radioactive materials would be released. The proposed change to
the TSs does not change this conclusion.
Additionally, the proposed revision to the TS was found to provide
control of plant operations, specifically control of rod movement
during Conditions 3 and 4. Thus, 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 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 Part 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
The Commission has concluded there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed amendment. 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 the application would result in no change in
current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the
proposed action and the no-action alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
considered previously in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, dated June 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 27, 1997, the staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. David Ney of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Radiation
Protection, 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 this proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated February 11, 1997. The letter is 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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference
Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day April of 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-9393 Filed 4-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
