[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2162-2164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-318]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-440]


The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co., et al.; 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 No. 
NPF-58, issued to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, 
Centerior Service Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, 
Pennsylvania Power Company, and Toledo Edison Company (the licensee), 
for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1, located in 
Lake County, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will replace the existing Technical 
Specifications (TS), in their entirety, with the Improved Technical 
Specification (ITS). The proposed action is in accordance with the 
licensee's amendment request dated December 16, [[Page 2163]] 1993, as 
supplemented November 7, 1994.

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,'' (Federal Register 52 FR 3788, February 6, 1987) and 
later the Final Policy Statement, formalized this need. To facilitate 
the development of individual ITS, each reactor vendor owners' group 
(OG) and the NRC staff, developed standard Technical Specifications. 
For General Electric (GE) plants, the standard TS (STS) are NUREG-1433 
for BWR/4 reactor facilities and NUREG-1434 for BWR/6 facilities. 
NUREG-1434 formed the basis of the Perry 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 by 
operating plants to the STS.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1434, 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-1434, 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 GE and other 
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 reformat of 
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the 
Perry TS 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 requirements, which includes items that were in 
the existing Perry TS, but did not meet the criteria set forth in the 
Policy Statement for inclusion in TS. In general, the proposed 
relocation of items in the Perry TS to the Updated Safety Analysis 
report (USAR), appropriate plant-specific 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 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 Perry 
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding 
requirements in the existing Perry TS, or are additional restrictions, 
which are not in the existing Perry TS, but are contained in NUREG-
1434. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a 
Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO) on plant equipment, which 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 Perry 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 
Perry, 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 TS. Changes which 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 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 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 Perry. 
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 TS has been 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 
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 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 Perry Nuclear 
Power Plant, Unit 1. [[Page 2164]] 

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with the State of Ohio 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 futher details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
licensee's letters dated December 16, 1993 (PY-CEI/NRR-1732 L), and 
November 7, 1994 (PY-CEI/NRR-1880 L). These letters 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, 
Perry, Ohio 44081.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of December 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leif J. Norrholm,
Director, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-318 Filed 1-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M