29868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 6, 1995 / Notices

The proposed changes from the

existing TSs can be grouped into four

general categories, as follows:

1. Non-technical (administrative)

changes, which were intended to make

the ITSs easier to use for plant

operations personnel. They are purely

editorial in nature or involve the

movement or reformat of requirements

without affecting technical content.

Every section of the RBS TSs has

undergone these types of changes. In

order to ensure consistency, the NRC

staff and the licensee have used

NUREG–1434 as guidance to reformat

and make other administrative changes.

2. Relocation of the requirements,

which includes items that were in the

existing RBS TSs, but did not meet the

criteria set forth in the Policy Statement

for inclusion in the TSs. In general, the

proposed relocation of items in the RBS

TSs to the Updated Safety Analysis

Report (USAR), appropriate plantspecific programs, procedures and ITS

Bases follows the guidance of the BWR/

6 STS, NUREG–1434. Once these items

have been relocated by removing them

from the TSs to other licenseecontrolled 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 RBS ITS

items that are either more conservative

than corresponding requirements in the

existing RBS TSs, or are additional

restrictions which are not in the existing

RBS TSs, but are contained in NUREG–

1434. Examples of more restrictive

requirements include: placing a

Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO)

on plant equipment, which is not

required by the present TSs 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 RBS TSs

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 RBS as described

in the safety evaluation to be issued

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 TSs. Changes which are

administrative in nature have been

found to have no effect on 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 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 assures

continued maintenance of adequate

requirements. All such relocations have

been found to be in conformance with

the guidelines of NUREG–1434 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

TSs 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 RBS. Generic

relaxations contained in NUREG–1434

have also been reviewed by the NRC

staff and have been found to be

acceptable.

In summary, the proposed revision to

the TSs 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. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

TS amendment.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

amendment involves features located

entirely within the restricted areas 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 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. As an alternative to

the proposed amendment, the staff

considered denial of the amendment.

Denial of the amendment would result

in no change in current environmental

impacts. The environmental impacts of

the proposed amendment and the

alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statement

for the River Bend Station, Unit 1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on May 16, 1995, the staff consulted

with the Louisiana State official, Dr.

Stan Shaw, Assistant Administrator of

the Louisiana Radiation Protection

Division, Department of Environmental

Quality 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 November 30, 1993, as

supplemented January 18, 1995, 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

Government Documents Department,

Louisiana State University, Baton

Rouge, LA 70803.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day

of May 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

David L. Wigginton,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

IV–1, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–13757 Filed 6–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M