[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 24197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11621]
[[Page 24197]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-44 and NPF-22, issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company
(PP&L, the licensee), for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would amend the Technical Specifications (TSs)
to increase the Rod Block Monitor (RBM) flow biased trip setpoints and
also change the RBM channel calibration frequency and allowed outage
times.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated November 27, 1996, as supplemented by
letter dated February 12, 1997.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The RBM was originally designed to prevent fuel damage during a Rod
Withdrawal Error (RWE) event while operating in the power range in a
normal mode of operation. The RWE analyses originally assumed that the
RBM automatically actuated to stop control rod motion. This automatic
stop of control rod motion is the sole design basis of the RBM.
As a result of rod drift events at SSES, the RWE is currently
analyzed without taking credit for the RBM to stop control rod motion.
The results of these analyses are operating limits that prevent fuel
damage from an RWE without the need for an RBM system to automatically
actuate to stop control rod motion.
The licensee considered that the RBM system was no longer needed
and could be removed from the TSs and in 1996 requested approval from
the NRC to remove it. The NRC decided that an acceptable alternative
was a proposal to raise the RBM setpoints to reduce its operational
impacts. This proposed amendment is about raising the RBM setpoints.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the RBM was initially considered as a system that
would prevent fuel damage during an RWE event while operating in the
power range in a normal mode of operation. However, the licensee's
results of their analyses show that the RBM is not required to prevent
fuel damage and the staff agrees with this.
Further, it is noted that with this TS change, the licensee will
find the need to do fewer control rod pattern adjustments and a
reduction in nuisance alarms. In addition to this, the change should
reduce operator interaction with the system (reducing possible man-to-
machine interface problems).
The TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupational 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 is no measurable
environmental impact 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 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
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for SSES,
Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 18, 1998, the
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, S. Maingi of the
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 the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated November 27, 1996, as supplemented by letter
dated February 12, 1997, 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 Osterhout Free Library, Reference Department, 71 South
Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor Nerses,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-11621 Filed 4-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
