[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37082-37083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-18075]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-289]


GPU Nuclear Corporation; Three Mile Island Nuclear 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 R to GPU Nuclear Corporation (the licensee), for 
operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), 
located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant an exemption from the requirements 
of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R to the extent that it requires the 
installation of automatic fire suppression systems in certain fire 
areas. The licensee is seeking an exemption from Appendix R, Section 
III.2.G.c, which requires the installation of automatic fire 
suppression systems in fire areas where redundant circuits required for 
safe shutdown are separated by fire barriers having a 1-hour rating and 
have fire detectors installed. The licensee requested exemptions for 
the following fire areas/zones: CB-FA-2b, CB-FA-2c, CB-FA-2d, CB-FA-2e, 
CB-FA-2f, CB-FA-2g, CB-FA-3a, CB-FA-3b, and FH-FZ-5.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated August 16, 1996, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 28, 1996, and January 3, 1997.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Installation of automatic fire suppression systems in the affected 
fire areas is not a viable alternative. The affected fire areas contain 
high voltage plant electrical equipment where automatic water 
suppression systems are not desirable. Halon gas suppression systems 
are no longer a viable option due to the environmental concerns. The 
affected fire areas and adjoining spaces are frequently occupied by 
plant personnel, therefore carbon dioxide suppression systems are not 
desirable due to the personnel hazard. Modification of the fire barrier 
envelopes within the affected fire areas to achieve a 3-hour rating, 
and therefore eliminating the need for fire suppression systems, would 
represent a substantial cost hardship.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    In lieu of an automatic sprinkler system, the licensee will install 
an area-wide automatic detection system in the affected fire areas and 
will establish that all the fire barrier envelopes within the affected 
fire areas have a minimum 1-hour fire endurance rating. Manual 
firefighting equipment is available either inside, or in close 
proximity to, all of the affected fire areas. Fire brigade response to 
these fire areas is expected to be rapid. Also, administrative controls 
limit the amount of combustibles in the affected fire areas.
    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and has concluded that the degree of fire protection afforded by the 
area-wide detectors, the minimum 1-hour rated fire barriers, the close 
proximity and rapid response of firefighting equipment, and certain 
administrative controls provide reasonable assurance that the ability 
to perform safe shutdown functions in the event of a fire will be 
maintained. This evaluation is applicable to the following fire areas 
identified in the licensee's submittal: CB-FA-2b, CB-FA-2c, CB-FA-2d, 
CB-FA-2e, CB-FA-2f, CB-FA-2g, CB-FA-3a, and CB-FA-3b.
    Granting an exemption from the regulation for these fire areas will 
not 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 the allowable 
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, 
the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves 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 action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the exemption, the Commission considered 
denial of the proposed action, thus requiring the licensee to upgrade 
the existing fire barrier envelopes to a 3-hour rating, or install 
automatic fire suppression systems. For fire areas CB-FA-2b, CB-FA-2c, 
CB-FA-2d, CG-FA-2e, CB-FA-2f, CB-FA-2g, CB-FA-3a, and CB-FA-

[[Page 37083]]

3b, the Commission concluded denial would result in no change in 
current environmental impacts.
    For fire zone FH-FZ-5, the Commission concluded that, due to the 
high combustible loading associated with this fire zone, upgrading to a 
3-hour fire barrier would have a measurable benefit. Denial of the 
proposed action with respect to fire zone FH-FZ-5 would result in no 
change to 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 TMI-1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 6, 1997, the staff 
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. S. Maingi of the 
Department of Environmental Protection, 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 the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated August 16, 1996, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 28, 1996, and January 3, 1997, which are 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 Law/Government Publications Section, State 
Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenues, 
Harrisburg, PA.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-18075 Filed 7-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P