[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 27014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12492]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[DOCKET NO. 50-353]


PECO Energy Company; Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2; 
Envirionmental 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 No. 
NPF-85, issued to PECO Energy Company (the licensee), for operation of 
the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Unit 2, located in Montgomery 
and Chester Counties, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would approve the implementation of a plant 
modification to support the installation of replacement suction 
strainers for the emergency core cooling systems (residual heat removal 
and core spray) pumps at LGS, Unit 2.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated October 6, 1997, as supplemented by 
letter dated August 28, 1998.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    On May 6, 1996, the NRC issued NRC Bulletin 96-03, ``Potential 
Plugging of Emergency Core Cooling Suction Strainers by Debris in 
Boiling Water Reactors,'' that requested addressees to implement 
appropriate procedural measures and plant modifications to minimize the 
potential for clogging of emergency core cooling system (ECCS) 
suppression pool suction strainers by debris generated during a loss-
of-coolant accident (LOCA) and requested that addressees report to the 
NRC whether they intend to implement the requested actions.
    In response to the above cited bulletin, the licensee proposed a 
plant modification to install replacement suction strainers in the ECCS 
pumps. The replacement strainer surface areas, which are substantially 
larger than the currently installed strainers, are required to reduce 
potential strainer clogging due to debris in the suppression pool 
following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the installation of the replacement strainers in the 
ECCS pumps reduces potential strainer clogging due to debris in the 
suppression pool following a loss-of-coolant accident and does not 
change the manner in which the plant is being operated or the 
environmental impacts of operation. The proposed action involves 
features entirely within the protected area as defined in 10 CFR part 
20.
    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 public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites and only 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. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    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 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 the 
Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on October 29, 1998, the 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. David Ney of 
the 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 October 6, 1997, as supplemented by letter 
dated August 28, 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of May 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate 1, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-12492 Filed 5-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P