[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27540-27541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12413]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-333]


Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
Inc.; James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of Section III.G.2.c 
of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 to Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, 
and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee), in connection with 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-59 for operation of the James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant located in Oswego County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would provide an exemption from the technical 
requirements of Section III.G.2.c of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50 to 
the extent that it requires the enclosure of cables of one redundant 
train of safe shutdown equipment in a 1-hour fire rated barrier, in 
fire area Control Tunnel 1 (CT-1).
    The proposed action is in accordance with the application for 
exemption dated October 30, 2000, filed by the former licensee, the 
Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY), as supplemented by 
the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. letter dated February 7, 2001. On 
November 21, 2000, PASNY's interests in the license were transferred to 
Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, which is authorized to possess and 
use FitzPatrick and to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., which is 
authorized to possess, use and operate FitzPatrick. By letter dated 
January 26, 2001, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. requested that the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

[[Page 27541]]

Commission (NRC) continue to review and act on all requests before the 
NRC which had been submitted by PASNY.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to support continued operation with 
cable wrap fire barriers in CT-1 that do not have a rating of 1 hour.

No Significant Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that there would be no significant environmental impact as a 
result of the proposed action. While the installed fire barrier in CT-1 
has less than a 1-hour fire endurance rating, it will provide some 
resistance to fire. The area where the fire barrier is located has no 
ignition sources other than cables, has available manual suppression 
capability, and is equipped with automatic fire suppression and fire 
detection. Under these circumstances, there is an adequate level of 
fire safety that there is reasonable assurance that at least one means 
of achieving and maintaining safe shutdown conditions will remain 
available during and after any postulated fire, and, therefore, the 
underlying purpose of the rule is met.
    The proposed action will not significantly 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 action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect 
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
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 
James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 22, 2001, the staff 
consulted with the New York State State official, Jay Dunkleberger, of 
the New York State Research and Development Authority, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see 
PASNY's letter dated October 30, 2000, as supplemented by Entergy 
Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s letter dated February 7, 2001. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on 
the NRC Web site, http:\\www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of May 2001.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Guy S. Vissing,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-12413 Filed 5-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P