[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57604-57605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28311]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-352]


Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick Generating Station, Unit 
1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix J (hereafter referred to as Appendix J) to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-39 issued to Philadelphia Electric Company 
(the licensee), for operation of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), 
Unit 1, located at the licensee's site in Chester and Montgomery 
Counties, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow an exemption from Appendix J, 
Section III.D.1.(a), which requires a set of three Type A tests (i.e., 
Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test) to be performed at 
approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period and 
specifies that the third test of each set be conducted when the plant 
is shutdown for the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI). The exemption 
would allow a one-time test interval extension from the current 
scheduled 62 months to approximately 89 months. It should also be noted 
that the licensee previously was granted a similar exemption on 
February 8, 1994 (59 FR 5758). This 1994 exemption allowed the licensee 
to perform it's third Type A test during the 10-year plant ISI 
refueling outage by extending the test interval 15 months. The licensee 
requested that the current exemption request supersede the previously 
granted exemption.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated June 20, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow the licensee to realize cost 
savings and reduced worker radiation exposure. Subsequent to the 
licensee's submittal, a rulemaking was completed (see 60 FR 49495 
September 26, 1995), which allows the Type A test to be performed at 
intervals up to once every 10 years (the actual period is based on 
historical performance of the containment). However, because the 
licensee's outage is scheduled to begin in January 1996, there is 
insufficient time for the licensee to implement the amended rule prior 
to the start of the outage.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
exemption and concludes that this action would not significantly 
increase the probability or amount of expected primary containment 
leakage; hence, the containment integrity would be maintained. The 
current requirement in Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to perform the 
three Type A tests would continue to be met, except that the time 
interval between the second and third type A tests would be extended to 
approximately 89 months.
    The licensee has analyzed the results of previous Type A tests to 
show good containment performance and will continue to be required to 
conduct the Type B and C local leak rate tests which historically have 
been shown to be the principal means of detecting containment leakage 
paths. It is also noted that the licensee, as a condition of the 
proposed exemption, will perform the visual containment inspection 
although it is only required by Appendix J to be conducted in 
conjunction with Type A tests. The NRC staff considers that these 
inspections, though limited in scope, provide an important added level 
of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary.
    Based on the information presented in the licensee's application, 
the proposed extended test interval would not result in a non-
detectable leakage rate in excess of the value established by Appendix 
J, or in any changes to the containment structure or plant systems. 
Consequently, the probability of accidents would not be increased, nor 
would the post-accident radiological releases be greater than 
previously determined. Neither would the proposed exemption otherwise 
affect radiological plant effluents. Accordingly, the Commission 
concludes that this proposed exemption would 

[[Page 57605]]

result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area 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 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, 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 alternative action 
are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This proposed exemption does not involve the use of any resources 
not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Limerick Generating Stations, Units 1 and 2, dated April 1984 as 
supplemented on August 1989.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on September 26, 1995, the 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, David Ney of the 
Bureau of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental 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 exemption 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 exemption.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 20, 1995, which is 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 Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, 
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November 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. 95-28311 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-1-P