[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