[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 70 (Friday, April 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17886-17887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9393]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Pennsylvania Power and Light Company Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station, 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. 
DPR-14 and DPR-22, issued to Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 
(PP&L) (the licensee), for the operation of Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located at the licensee's site in 
Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will add to the current SSES Technical 
Specifications (TSs) (Special Test Exception Section 3.10.7 and 
3.10.8), the Improved Technical Specifications Sections (ITS) 3.10.3 
and 3.10.4 in a modified format and with applicable cross references.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment 
request dated February 11, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of TSs. 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. NUREG-1433 formed the 
basis of the SSES 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 February 11, 1997 submittal requested that two sections be 
approved prior to the staff approval of the entire ITS to adopt 
Sections 3.10.3 and 3.10.4 of the ITS into the current TS Special Test 
Exception Sections 3.10.3 and 3.10.4. This change will permit control 
rod testing during refueling outages. The only creditable accident 
associated with control rod testing during the refuel outage is the 
``Rod Withdrawal Error--Low Power'' and is addressed in Section 15.4.1 
of SSES Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    The February 11, 1997 request is part of a larger amendment request 
submitted on August 1, 1996. The requests are based on NUREG-1433 and 
on guidance provided in the above-referenced Policy Statement. If 
granted, the amendments would completely rewrite, reformat, and 
streamline the existing TSs. Emphasis is placed on human factors 
principles to improve clarity and understanding. The Bases section 
would be significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the 
purpose

[[Page 17887]]

and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, 
portions of the existing TSs 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.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    As stated above, the only plausible consequence of the proposed 
action is a rod withdrawal error during low power. The effects of such 
an error were analyzed in ``Rod Withdrawal Error-Low Power,'' Section 
15.4.1 of the UFSAR. This analysis indicates that withdrawal of a 
single rod during refueling is insufficient to cause criticality and 
thus no radioactive materials would be released. The proposed change to 
the TSs does not change this conclusion.
    Additionally, the proposed revision to the TS was found to provide 
control of plant operations, specifically control of rod movement 
during Conditions 3 and 4. Thus, 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

    The Commission has concluded there are no significant environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed amendment. Any alternatives with 
equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an 
alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the 
proposed action. Denial of the application would result in no change in 
current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the 
proposed action and the no-action alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
considered previously in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, dated June 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 27, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. David Ney 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 action.
    For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated February 11, 1997. The letter is 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 the Osterhout Free Library, Reference 
Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day April of 1997.

    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. 97-9393 Filed 4-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P