[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55154-55155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27509]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]


Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Generating 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. 
NPF-39 and NPF-85, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), 
Units 1 and 2, located in Montgomery and Chester Counties, 
Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-39 and NPF-85 and the Technical Specifications (TSs) and the 
Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs) appended to Facility Operating 
Licenses Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 for LGS, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, 
the proposed action would amend the licenses to reflect the change in 
the licensee's name from Philadelphia Electric Company to PECO Energy 
Company.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated February 25, 1997, as supplemented 
September 8 and November 18, 1997, and January 8 and July 2, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to have the licenses accurately 
reflect the legal name of the licensee, which changed on January 1, 
1994.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed changes 
to the licenses, and EPPs. By letter dated December 21, 1993, the 
Philadelphia Electric Company informed the NRC that effective January 
1, 1994, it was changing its name to PECO Energy Company. PECO Energy 
Company was not to be a new corporation, or a successor corporation to 
Philadelphia Electric Company, but it was to remain and continue to be 
the same company with a different name. As a result, contracts, 
agreements, obligations, licenses, and permits relating to Philadelphia 
Electric Company would continue to be legal, valid, and binding with 
respect to PECO Energy Company.

[[Page 55155]]

This proposed change should have no effect or impact on the regulatory 
obligations of the licensee under the laws and regulations administered 
by the Commission, or the licensee's qualifications to hold the 
license, and should not change in any way the business of the licensee 
with the Commission. There should be no change in the safety and 
security of the public from the name change and the applicable 
antitrust condition will continue to apply.
    The proposed name change is administrative in nature, and will not 
affect plant operations. Thus, the proposed action 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 name 
change is administrative in nature and does not involve any physical 
features of the plant. Thus, 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

    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 (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 LGS, 
Units 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 23, 1998, the staff 
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. David Ney, of the 
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, 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 letters dated February 25, 1997, as supplemented September 8 
and November 18, 1997, and January 8 and July 2, 1998, 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 Pottstown Public Library, 
500 High Street, Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bartholomew C. Buckley,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-27509 Filed 10-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P