[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16694-16696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7509]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-11 and 
NPF-18, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC, or the 
licensee), for operation of LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 
(LaSalle), respectively, located in LaSalle County, Illinois. The 
original application was submitted by Commonwealth Edison Company 
(ComEd), which merged to form EGC. By letter dated February 7, 2001, 
EGC assumed responsibility for all pending NRC actions that were 
requested by ComEd.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment would be a full conversion from the current 
Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 1, dated 
April 1995, and NUREG-1434, ``Standard Technical Specifications--
General Electric Plants, BWR/6,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. The 
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated 
March 3, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated March 24, June 5 (two 
letters), July 18, July 31, September 1, September 22, October 5, 
October 9, November 20, and December 18, 2000; and February 15, 
February 28, and March 7, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would 
benefit from improvement and standardization of Technical 
Specifications (TSs). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical 
Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (52 FR 3788) 
contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TSs. Later, the 
``NRC Final Policy Statement on TS Improvement for Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (58 FR 39132) incorporated lessons learned since publication 
of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for a revision to 
10 CFR 50.36. The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for 
determining the content of TSs. To facilitate the development of ITS, 
each reactor vendor owners group and the NRC staff developed standard 
TSs (STS). The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements reviewed 
the STS, made note of their safety merits, and indicated its support of 
conversion by operating plants to the STS. For LaSalle, the STS are 
NUREG-1433, Revision 1, ``Standard Technical Specifications, General 
Electric Plants BWR/4,'' dated April 1995, and NUREG-1434, ``Standard 
Technical Specifications--General Electric Plants, BWR/6,'' Revision 1, 
dated April 1995. These documents formed the basis for the LaSalle ITS 
conversion.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1433, NUREG-
1434, and guidance provided in the Final Policy Statement. Its 
objective is to completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTS 
(i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS). 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 and NUREG-1434, portions of the CTS were also used as the basis 
for the development of the LaSalle ITS. Plant-specific issues (unique 
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed 
at length with the licensee.
    The proposed changes from the CTS can be grouped into four general 
categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative 
changes, technical changes--relocations, technical changes--more 
restrictive, and technical changes--less restrictive. They are 
described as follows:
    1. Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering, and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-
1433 and NUREG-1434, and does not involve technical changes to the 
existing TSs. The proposed changes include: (a) Identifying plant-
specific wording for system names, etc., (b) changing the wording of 
specification titles in the CTS to conform to STS, (c) splitting up 
requirements that are currently grouped, or combining requirements that 
are currently in separate specifications, (d) deleting specifications 
whose applicability has expired, and (e) wording changes that are 
consistent with the CTS but that more clearly or explicitly state 
existing requirements. Such changes are administrative in nature and do 
not impact initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events.
    2. Relocation changes are those involving relocation of 
requirements and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or 
variables that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TSs. Relocated 
changes are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within 
any of the four criteria specified in the NRC's policy statement and 
may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria to LaSalle is 
described in Volume 1 of Enclosure B to the March 3, 2000, submittal. 
The affected structures, systems, components, or variables are not 
assumed to be initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to 
mitigate accident or transient events. The requirements and 
surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or 
variables will be relocated from the TSs to administratively controlled 
documents such as the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the 
ITS Bases, or other licensee-controlled documents. Once these items 
have been relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, the 
licensee may revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural 
means to control changes by the licensee.
    3. More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in 
the safety analyses.
    4. Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed, relocated or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility 
is provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are 
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to 
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be 
appropriate. In most cases,

[[Page 16695]]

relaxations previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific 
basis were the result of (a) generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff 
positions that have evolved from technological advancements and 
operating experience, or (c) resolution of the Owners Groups' comments 
on the Improved Standard Technical Specifications. Generic relaxations 
contained in NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434 were reviewed by the staff and 
found to be acceptable because they are consistent with current 
licensing practices and NRC regulations. Each less restrictive change 
in the LaSalle conversion was justified by the licensee in a Discussion 
of Change and reviewed by the NRC staff.
    In addition, there are 12 changes that are different from the 
requirements in the CTS, NUREG-1433, or NUREG-1434, or that are beyond 
the changes that are needed to meet the overall purpose of the 
conversion. These changes are as follows:
    1. The test interval of certain surveillance requirements is 
changed from 18 months to 24 months to permit a longer fuel cycle. 
Justification for the proposed change follows the guidance of Generic 
Letter 91-04, ``Changes in Technical Specification Surveillance 
Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle,'' and includes a 
revision to the instrument setpoint methodology.
    2. The requirements in CTS 4.3.7.5 are changed to allow 6 hours to 
perform surveillance testing of the post-accident monitoring 
instrumentation channels prior to entering action statements.
    3. The requirements in CTS 4.3.7.4 are changed to allow 6 hours to 
perform surveillance testing of the remote shutdown monitoring system 
instrumentation channels prior to entering action statements.
    4. The detailed list of the remote shutdown monitoring system 
instrumentation that is required to be operable (CTS 3.3.7.4) is 
relocated to the TRM.
    5. The frequency for determining reactor coolant system leakage 
(CTS 4.4.3.2.1) is changed from 8 to 12 hours, which is consistent with 
the Generic Letter 88-01, Supplement 1, guidance to perform the 
surveillance once every shift, not to exceed 12 hours.
    6. The requirements in CTS 4.4.3.1 are changed to allow a channel 
of leakage detection system to be inoperable for up to 6 hours for the 
performance of required surveillances provided the other leakage 
detection system instrumentation is operable.
    7. The minimum pressure at which the automatic depressurization 
system is required to be operable (CTS 3.5.1) is increased from 122 
psig to 150 psig.
    8. The requirements (CTS 4.6.1.1) are changed to allow 
administrative means of verifying air lock door position in areas that 
are inaccessible due to high radiation or inerting.
    9. The CTS 4.6.1.1 requirement that the excess flow check valves 
must ``check flow'' is changed to require that the valves ``actuate to 
their isolation position.''
    10. The required battery voltage for the 250 volt battery (CTS 
4.7.3.d.1.d) is increased from 250 volts to 256 volts, which is 
consistent with the 2.2 volts/cell requirement for the 125-volt 
battery.
    11. The CTS 4.8.2.3.2 requirements will be modified to allow a 
modified performance discharge test to be used instead of a service 
test or a performance discharge test, which is consistent with IEEE-
450.
    12. The duration of the battery charger capacity test (CTS 
4.8.2.3.2.c.4) is reduced from 8 hours to 4 hours.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to 
the CTS. Changes which are administrative in nature have been found to 
have no effect on the technical content of the TSs and are acceptable. 
The increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TSs 
are expected to improve the operators' control of the plant in normal 
and accident conditions. Relocation of requirements to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves nor 
does 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) mandate that the TSs include these 
requirements. Further changes to these requirements may be made by the 
licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved control mechanisms 
that ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such 
relocations have been found to be in conformance with the guidelines of 
NUREG-1433, NUREG-1434, and the Final Policy Statement and are, 
therefore, acceptable.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
enhance plant safety and 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 action, or of agreements reached during 
discussions with the Owners Groups, and have been found to be 
acceptable for LaSalle. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 and 
NUREG-1434 have also been reviewed by the NRC staff and have been found 
to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the CTS were 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 changes to the TSs will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is 
no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed amendment.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area 
as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and does not involve any historical sites. 
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
amendment.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for LaSalle, 
dated November 1978.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on February 20, 2001, the NRC 
consulted with the Illinois State official, Mr. F. Niziolek, regarding 
the environmental impacts of the proposed action. The State official 
had no comments.

[[Page 16696]]

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of this environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated March 3, 2000, as supplemented by letters 
dated March 24, June 5 (two letters), July 18, July 31, September 1, 
September 22, October 5, October 9, November 20, and December 18, 2000; 
and February 15, February 28, and March 7, 2001. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, http:\\www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-7509 Filed 3-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P