[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5191-5192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1903]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278; NRC-2009-0033]
Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Peach Bottom Atomic Power
Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, ``Fire
Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability,'' for the use of operator
manual actions in lieu of the requirements specified in Section III.G.2
as requested by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (the licensee, in
addition to PSEG Nuclear, LLC) for operation of Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 located in York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an exemption to 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix R, Section III.G.2 for 25 operator manual actions contained in
the licensee's Fire Protection Program (FPP). The licensee's FPP
requires that the identified operator manual actions be performed
outside of the control room to achieve shutdown following fires in
certain fire areas. The licensee states that each of the manual actions
were subjected to a manual action feasibility review for PBAPS that
determined that the manual actions are feasible and can be readily
performed.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented on May 1 and
December 11, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession Numbers ML072820129, ML081220873 and ML083470170,
respectively).
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, was
submitted in response to the need for an exemption as identified by NRC
Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 2006-10, ``Regulatory Expectations
with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator Manual Actions.'' The RIS
noted that NRC inspections identified that some licensees had relied
upon operator manual actions, instead of the options specified in 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as a permanent solution to
resolve issues related to Thermo-Lag 330-1 fire barriers. The licensee
indicates that the operator manual actions, referenced in the October
5, 2007, application, were previously included in correspondence with
the NRC and found acceptable in a fire protection-related Safety
Evaluation (1993 SE) dated September 16, 1993 (ADAMS Accession Number
ML081690220). However, RIS 2006-10 identifies that an exemption under
10 CFR Part 50.12 is necessary for use of the manual actions in lieu of
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, even
if the NRC previously issued a safety evaluation found the manual
actions acceptable. The proposed exemption provides the formal vehicle
for NRC approval for the use of the specified operator manual actions
instead of the options specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section
III.G.2.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the exemption will not present an undue risk to the
public health and safety. The details of the NRC staff's safety
evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as
part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the
regulation.
In the 1993 SE, the NRC staff evaluated the operator manual actions
presented in the proposed exemption, and found that they maintained a
safe shutdown capability that satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix R, Section III.G. In addition, the licensee supplemented
the October 5, 2007, request for exemption with additional information
in a letter dated December 11, 2008, to confirm that the operator
manual actions addressed in the 1993 SE are feasible and that the
safety basis for these actions remains valid. Therefore, the proposed
action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences
of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that
may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount
of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action. The NRC staff, thus, concludes that granting the
proposed exemption would result in no significant radiological
environmental impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does
not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC 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
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for
PBAPS Units 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and for PBAPS Units 2 and 3,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants,'' (NUREG-1437, Supplement 10), dated January 2003.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 8, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Dennis Dyckman of
the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental Protection,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the 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.
[[Page 5192]]
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented on May 1 and
December 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML072820129, ML081220873 and
ML083470170, respectively). Documents may be examined, and/or copied
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737,
or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of January 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Hughey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-1903 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P