[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42190-42192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20120]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]
Peco Energy Company Public Service Electric and Gas Company;
Delmarva Power and Light Company; Atlantic City Electric Company; Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; 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-44 and DPR-56, issued to PECO Energy Company, Public Service
Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and
Atlantic City Electric Company (the licensee), for the Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, located at the licensee's
site in York County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will replace the existing PBAPS Technical
Specifications (TS) in their entirety with Improved Technical
Specifications (ITS). The proposed action is in accordance with the
licensee's amendment request dated September 29, 1994 as supplemented
by letters dated March 3, March 30, May 4 (two letters), May 8, May 9,
May 16, May 24, May 25, May 26, June 7, July 7, July 13 and July 21,
1995.
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, 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.
[[Page 42191]]
NUREG-1433 formed the basis of the PBAPS 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 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 with the 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 reformatting of
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the
PBAPS TS has undergone these types of changes. In order to ensure
consistency, the NRC staff and the licensee have used NUREG-1433 as
guidance to reformat and make other administrative changes.
2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in
the existing PBAPS TS but did not meet the criteria set forth in the
Policy Statement for inclusion in the TS. In general, the proposed
relocation of items in the PBAPS TS to the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR), appropriate plant-specific programs,
procedures and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the BWR/4 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.
3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed PBAPS
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding
requirements in the existing PBAPS TS, or are additional restrictions
which are not in the existing PBAPS TS but are contained in NUREG-1433.
Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a Limiting
Condition of Operation (LCO) on plant equipment that 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 PBAPS 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
PBAPS as described in the staff's draft Safety Evaluation which was
issued on July 20, 1995. The staff will issue a final Safety Evaluation
with the license amendment, which will be noticed in the Federal
Register.
In addition to the changes described above, the licensee proposed
certain changes to the existing technical specifications that deviated
from the standard technical specifications in NUREG-1433. Each of these
additional proposed changes is described in the licensee's application
and in the staff's Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to
Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing (60 FR 26905).
These changes have been justified on a case-by-case basis for PBAPS as
described in the staff's draft Safety Evaluation which was issued on
July 20, 1995. The staff will issue a final Safety Evaluation 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 that 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 ensures continued maintenance of
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1433 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 PBAPS. Generic
relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 as well as proposed deviations from
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 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
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 Peach Bottom
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1973.
[[Page 42192]]
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 19, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Stan Maingi 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 amendment.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated September 29, 1994 and supplemental letters
dated March 3, March 30, May 4 (two letters), May 8, May 9, May 16, May
24, May 25, May 26, June 7, July 7, July 13 and July 21, 1995. These
letters 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 Government
Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL
DEPOSITORY) Education Building, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue,
Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of August 1995.
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. 95-20120 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
