```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39114-39115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19364]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388]

Pennsylvania Power and Light Company; Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Plants, 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. 
NPF-14 and NPF-22, issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, (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 Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address potential 
environmental issues related to the licensee's application dated August 
1, 1996, as supplemented by letters dated November 26, 1997, January 6, 
March 2, April 24, and June 18, 1998. The proposed amendments will 
replace the SSES, Units 1 and 2, Current Technical Specifications 
(CTSs) in their entirety with Improved Technical Specifications (ITSs) 
based on Revision 1 to NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications-
General Electric Plants BWR/4'' dated April 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of Technical 
Specifications (TS). The Commission's ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on 
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' (52 
Fed. Reg. 3788, February 6, 1987), and later the Commission's ``Final 
Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear 
Power Reactors,'' 58 FR 39132 (July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To 
facilitate the development of individual improved TSs, each reactor 
vendor owners group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS (STS). 
For General Electric plants, the STS are published as NUREG-1433, and 
this document was the basis for the new SSES, Units 1 and 2 TSs. 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 TSs is based on NUREG-1433 and on 
guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its objective is to 
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTS. 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 the NUREG, portions of the CTS 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 OG.
    The proposed changes from the existing CTS, 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 operators personnel. They are 
purely editorial in nature or involve the movement or reformatting of 
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the 
SSES, Units 1 and 2 CTS 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 SSES, Units 1 and 2 CTS. The CTS items that are being relocated to 
licensee-controlled documents are not required to be in the TSs under 
10 CFR 50.36 and do not meet any of the four criteria in the 
Commission's Final Policy Statement for inclusion in the TSs. They are 
not needed to obviate the possibility that an abnormal situation or 
event will give rise to an immediate threat to the public health and 
safety. The NRC staff has concluded that appropriate controls have been 
established for all of the current specifications, information, and 
requirements that are being moved to licensee-controlled documents. In 
general, the proposed relocation of items in the SSES, Units 1 and 2, 
CTS to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), appropriate plant-
specific programs, procedures and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the 
General Electric STS (NUREG-1433). Once these items have been relocated 
by removing them from the CTS to 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 SSES, 
Units 1 and 2 ITSs items that are either more conservative than 
corresponding requirements in the SSES, Units 1 and 2, CTS or are 
additional restrictions that are not in the SSES, Units 1 and 2, CTS, 
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 CTS to be operable; more 
restrictive requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more 
restrictive surveillance requirements.
    4. Less restrictive requirements are relaxations of corresponding 
requirements in the SSES, Units 1 and 2, CTS that provide little or no 
safety benefit and place unnecessary burdens on the licensee. These 
relaxations were the result of generic NRC actions or other analyses. 
They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for SSES, Units 1 and 
2, as will be described in the staff's Safety Evaluation to be issued 
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 CTS that deviated from the STS in NUREG-1433. 
These additional proposed changes are 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 
(61 FR 56972) published in the Federal

[[Page 39115]]

Register on November 5, 1996. Where these changes represent a change to 
the current licensing basis for SSES, Units 1 and 2, they have been 
justified on a case-by-case and will be described in the staff's safety 
evaluation to be issued with the license amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed TS conversion would not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and would 
not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological 
effluents.
    Changes that are administrative in nature would have no effect on 
the technical content of the TSs and are acceptable. The increased 
clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TSs are expected 
to improve the operator's control of the plant in normal and accident 
conditions.
    Relocation of requirements to licensee-controlled documents would 
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 Final Policy 
Statement, and, therefore, are acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements would be likely to 
enhance the safety of plant operations and are 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 burdens on plant operations, 
those requirements have been relaxed in an overall effort to enhance 
safety. The 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. The principal alternative to this action would be to deny 
the request for the amendment. Such action would not reduce the 
environmental impacts of plant operations.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to 
the operation of the SSES, Units 1 and 2, dated June 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 19, 1998, the staff 
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. M. Mangi of the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau, Division of 
Nuclear Safety, 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 August 1, 1996, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 26, 1997, January 6, March 2, April 24, and June 18, 
1998, 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, PA 18701.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Capra,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-19364 Filed 7-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```