[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42190-42192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20120]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278]


Peco Energy Company Public Service Electric and Gas Company; 
Delmarva Power and Light Company; Atlantic City Electric Company; Peach 
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3; 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. 
DPR-44 and DPR-56, issued to PECO Energy Company, Public Service 
Electric and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, and 
Atlantic City Electric Company (the licensee), for the Peach Bottom 
Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3, located at the licensee's 
site in York County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will replace the existing PBAPS Technical 
Specifications (TS) in their entirety with Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS). The proposed action is in accordance with the 
licensee's amendment request dated September 29, 1994 as supplemented 
by letters dated March 3, March 30, May 4 (two letters), May 8, May 9, 
May 16, May 24, May 25, May 26, June 7, July 7, July 13 and July 21, 
1995.

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,'' (52 FR 3788, February 6, 1987) and later the Final 
Policy Statement (58 FR 39132, July 22, 1993), formalized this need. To 
facilitate the development of individual ITS, each reactor vendor 
owners group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard TS (STS). For 
General Electric (GE) plants, the STS are NUREG-1433 for BWR/4 reactor 
facilities and NUREG-1434 for BWR/6 facilities. 

[[Page 42191]]
NUREG-1433 formed the basis of the PBAPS 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 to 
the STS by operating plants.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed revision to the TS is based on NUREG-1433 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-1433, 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 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 reformatting of 
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the 
PBAPS TS 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 existing PBAPS TS but did not meet the criteria set forth in the 
Policy Statement for inclusion in the TS. In general, the proposed 
relocation of items in the PBAPS TS to the Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, 
procedures and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the BWR/4 STS, NUREG-
1433. 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 PBAPS 
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding 
requirements in the existing PBAPS TS, or are additional restrictions 
which are not in the existing PBAPS TS 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 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 PBAPS 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 
PBAPS as described in the staff's draft Safety Evaluation which was 
issued on July 20, 1995. The staff will issue a final Safety Evaluation 
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 existing technical specifications that deviated 
from the standard technical specifications in NUREG-1433. Each of these 
additional proposed changes is 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 (60 FR 26905). 
These changes have been justified on a case-by-case basis for PBAPS as 
described in the staff's draft Safety Evaluation which was issued on 
July 20, 1995. The staff will issue a final Safety Evaluation 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 that 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 ensures continued maintenance of 
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in 
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1433 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 PBAPS. Generic 
relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 as well as proposed deviations from 
NUREG-1433 have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found 
to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revision to the TS 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. 
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 Part 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 Peach Bottom 
Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1973. 

[[Page 42192]]


Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 19, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Stan Maingi of the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 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 amendment.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated September 29, 1994 and supplemental letters 
dated March 3, March 30, May 4 (two letters), May 8, May 9, May 16, May 
24, May 25, May 26, June 7, July 7, July 13 and July 21, 1995. These 
letters are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20555, and at the local public document room located at Government 
Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL 
DEPOSITORY) Education Building, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, 
Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 8th day of August 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-20120 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P