[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 21, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39177-39178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-18634]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-456, STN 50-457, STN 50-454, STN 50-455, 50-237,
50-249, 50-373, 50-374, 50-254 and 50-265]
Commonwealth Edison Company: Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and
2, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Dresden Station, Unit Nos. 2 and
3, LaSalle County Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Quad Cities Station, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of exemptions from certain requirements of its
regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72, NPF-77, NPF-37,
NPF-66, DPR-19, DPR-25, NPF-11, NPF-18, DPR-29 and DPR-30 issued to the
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), for operation of
Braidwood Station, located in Will County, Illinois; Byron Station
located in Ogle County, Illinois; Dresden Station located in Grundy
County, Illinois; LaSalle County Station located in LaSalle County,
Illinois; and Quad Cities Station located in Rock Island County,
Illinois, respectively.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed actions would exempt the licensee from the
requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Under the proposed
exemptions, the licensee would submit updates to the UFSARs within 24
calendar months of the previous UFSAR revision submittal. Braidwood and
Byron share a common FSAR and the Dresden, Quad Cities, and LaSalle
Stations maintain their own FSARs that are common to both units at each
station.
The proposed actions are in accordance with the licensee's
application dated May 4, 1993.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The Code of Federal Regulations, 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), requires
licensees to submit updates to their FSARs annually or within 6 months
after each refueling outage provided that the interval between
successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since the units for each
station, and the Braidwood and Byron stations, share a common FSAR, the
licensee must update the same document annually or within 6 months
after a refueling outage for each unit. The underlying purpose of the
rule was to relieve licensees of the burden of filing annual FSAR
revisions while assuring that such revisions are made at least every 24
months. The Commission reduced the burden, in part, by permitting a
licensee to submit its FSAR revisions 6 months after refueling outages
for its facility, but did not provide for multiple unit facilities
sharing a common FSAR in the rule. Rather, the Commission stated:
``with respect to the concern about multiple facilities sharing a
common FSAR, licensees will have maximum flexibility for scheduling
updates on a case-by-case basis' (57 FR 39355) (1992). Allowing the
exemption would maintain the updated FSAR current within 24 months of
the last revision.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed actions
and concludes that they involve administrative activities unrelated to
plant operation.
The proposed actions will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed actions.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
actions do not involve any historic sites. They do not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed actions.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with these actions.
Alternative to the Proposed Actions
As an alternative to the proposed actions, the staff considered
denial of the proposed actions (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the exemptions would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed
actions and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
These actions do not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements for
Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, or Quad Cities.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on May 14, 1999, the staff
consulted with the Illinois official, Mr. Frank Nizeolik of the
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed actions. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed actions will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined not to
[[Page 39178]]
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's
letter dated May 4, 1993, which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington DC.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of July, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Acting Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-18634 Filed 7-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P