[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44385-44386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21287]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 AND 50-412]


Firstenergy Nuclear Operating Company, Ohio Edison Company, 
Pennsylvania Power Company, Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2 (BVPS-1 and 2); Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering issuance of 
an amendment to Technical Specifications (TSs) for Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73, issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating 
Company, et al. (the licensee), for operation of BVPS-1 and 2, located 
in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal

[[Page 44386]]

Regulations (10 CFR), Section 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 
environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendments would revise the BVPS-1 and 2 Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report assumptions, descriptions, and calculated 
radiological consequences of a postulated fuel handling accident (FHA), 
including implementation of a revised accident source term for a 
postulated FHA. These revisions would demonstrate that the consequences 
of an FHA, once the fuel has undergone radioactive decay for 100 hours, 
would result in calculated radiation exposures within the guidelines of 
10 CFR 50.67, ``Accident Source Term.'' Consistent with the assumptions 
and description of the revised FHA analysis, the licensee proposes to 
revise the BVPS-1 and 2 TSs associated with the requirements for 
handling irradiated fuel assemblies in the reactor containment and fuel 
building. The proposed amendment would also revise the TSs associated 
with ensuring that safety analysis assumptions for a postulated FHA are 
met. The term ``recently irradiated'' fuel would be defined in the 
applicable TS Bases as ``fuel that has occupied part of a critical 
reactor core within the previous 100 hours'' and the term ``recently 
irradiated'' fuel would be added in various locations throughout the 
TSs. The purpose of the addition of the term ``recently irradiated'' 
throughout the TSs is to establish a point where operability of those 
systems typically used to mitigate the consequences of an FHA is no 
longer required to meet the radiation exposure limits of 10 CFR 50.67. 
This amendment would revise the TSs to eliminate TS controls over the 
integrity of the fuel building and the reactor containment building and 
the operability of the associated building's ventilation/filtration 
systems after the decay period of 100 hours.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated March 19, 2001 (Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML010810433), as supplemented 
by letters dated July 6 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011980423), and August 8 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML012260302), 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action involves an accepted method for implementation 
of a revised accident source term for postulated design basis accident 
analyses (such as the FHA) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.67. The 
proposed action would result in a reduction in an unnecessary 
regulatory burden and would result in greater flexibility in execution 
of refueling outage operations.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that the revised assumptions, descriptions, and methodologies 
used by the licensee for a postulated FHA for BVPS-1 and 2 follow 
regulatory guidance and that there is reasonable assurance that, in the 
event of a postulated FHA, the offsite and control room doses would be 
well within the 10 CFR 50.67 guidelines.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
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 have a potential to affect any historic sites. 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 NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the 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

    The action does not involve the use of any different resource than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statements for 
BVPS-1 and 2, dated July 31, 1973, and September 30, 1985, respectively 
(Nuclear Documents Systems Accession Nos. 8907200125 and 8509300559, 
respectively).

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On August 9, 2001, the NRC staff consulted with the Pennsylvania 
State official, Mr. Larry Ryan of the Pennsylvania 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

    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.
    Further details with respect to the proposed action may be found in 
the licensee's letter dated March 19, 2001, as supplemented by letters 
dated July 6, and August 8, 2001. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publically available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). Persons 
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 Lawrence J. Burkhart,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-21287 Filed 8-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P