[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 18 (Thursday, January 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5191-5192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1903]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278; NRC-2009-0033]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Peach Bottom Atomic Power 
Station Unit Nos. 2 and 3; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, ``Fire 
Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability,'' for the use of operator 
manual actions in lieu of the requirements specified in Section III.G.2 
as requested by Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (the licensee, in 
addition to PSEG Nuclear, LLC) for operation of Peach Bottom Atomic 
Power Station (PBAPS), Units 2 and 3 located in York and Lancaster 
Counties, Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC 
is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant an exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix R, Section III.G.2 for 25 operator manual actions contained in 
the licensee's Fire Protection Program (FPP). The licensee's FPP 
requires that the identified operator manual actions be performed 
outside of the control room to achieve shutdown following fires in 
certain fire areas. The licensee states that each of the manual actions 
were subjected to a manual action feasibility review for PBAPS that 
determined that the manual actions are feasible and can be readily 
performed.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented on May 1 and 
December 11, 2008 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) Accession Numbers ML072820129, ML081220873 and ML083470170, 
respectively).

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, was 
submitted in response to the need for an exemption as identified by NRC 
Regulatory Information Summary (RIS) 2006-10, ``Regulatory Expectations 
with Appendix R Paragraph III.G.2 Operator Manual Actions.'' The RIS 
noted that NRC inspections identified that some licensees had relied 
upon operator manual actions, instead of the options specified in 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, as a permanent solution to 
resolve issues related to Thermo-Lag 330-1 fire barriers. The licensee 
indicates that the operator manual actions, referenced in the October 
5, 2007, application, were previously included in correspondence with 
the NRC and found acceptable in a fire protection-related Safety 
Evaluation (1993 SE) dated September 16, 1993 (ADAMS Accession Number 
ML081690220). However, RIS 2006-10 identifies that an exemption under 
10 CFR Part 50.12 is necessary for use of the manual actions in lieu of 
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.2, even 
if the NRC previously issued a safety evaluation found the manual 
actions acceptable. The proposed exemption provides the formal vehicle 
for NRC approval for the use of the specified operator manual actions 
instead of the options specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section 
III.G.2.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the exemption will not present an undue risk to the 
public health and safety. The details of the NRC staff's safety 
evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as 
part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the 
regulation.
    In the 1993 SE, the NRC staff evaluated the operator manual actions 
presented in the proposed exemption, and found that they maintained a 
safe shutdown capability that satisfies the requirements of 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix R, Section III.G. In addition, the licensee supplemented 
the October 5, 2007, request for exemption with additional information 
in a letter dated December 11, 2008, to confirm that the operator 
manual actions addressed in the 1993 SE are feasible and that the 
safety basis for these actions remains valid. Therefore, 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 offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount 
of any effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action. The NRC staff, thus, concludes that granting the 
proposed exemption would result in no significant radiological 
environmental impact.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect non-radiological 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.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC 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 resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for 
PBAPS Units 1, 2, and 3, dated April 1973, and for PBAPS Units 2 and 3, 
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 
Plants,'' (NUREG-1437, Supplement 10), dated January 2003.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
    In accordance with its stated policy, on August 8, 2008, the NRC 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Dennis Dyckman of 
the Pennsylvania State Department of Environmental 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.

[[Page 5192]]

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated October 5, 2007, as supplemented on May 1 and 
December 11, 2008 (ADAMS Accession Numbers ML072820129, ML081220873 and 
ML083470170, respectively). Documents may be examined, and/or copied 
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 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 send an e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of January 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Hughey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-1903 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P