[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29867-29868]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13757]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-458]


Entergy Operations, Inc. 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-47, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for 
operation of the River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS), located in West 
Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will replace the existing Technical 
Specifications (TSs) in their entirety with the Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITSs).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment 
request dated November 30, 1993, as supplemented January 18, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of the TSs. 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 ITSs, each reactor vendor 
owners group (OG) and the NRC staff developed Standard TSs. For General 
Electric (GE) plants, the Standard TSs (STS) are NUREG-1433 for BWR/4 
reactor facilities and NUREG-1434 for BWR/6 facilities. NUREG-1434 
formed the basis of the RBS ITSs.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed revision to the TSs is based on NUREG-1434 and on 
guidance provided in the Policy Statement. Its objective is to 
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TSs. 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 TSs 
were also used as the basis for the ITSs. Plant-specific issues (unique 
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed 
at length with the licensee, and generic matters with GE and other 
OGs. [[Page 29868]] 
    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 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 TSs 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 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 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 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