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, section 71(e)(4) to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (the licensee), for operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit Nos. 2 and 3, located in York County, Pennsylvania.
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from some requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) regarding submission of revisions to the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed exemption would allow updates to the combined UFSAR for PBAPS, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, to be submitted within 6 months following completion of each PBAPS Unit 2 refueling outage, not to exceed 24 months from the previous submittal.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated May 30, 2001.
The Need for the Proposed Action
10 CFR 50.71(e)(4), requires licensees to submit updates to their UFSAR annually or within 6 months after each refueling outage provided that the interval between successive updates does not exceed 24 months. Since Units 2 and 3 share a common UFSAR, the licensee must update the same document annually or within 6 months after a refueling outage for either unit. The last change to 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) was published in the Federal Register (57 FR 39358) on August 31, 1992, and became effective on October 1, 1992. The underlying purpose of the rule change was to relieve licensees of the burden of filing annual UFSAR revisions while assuring that such revisions are made at least every 24 months. However, as written, the burden reduction can only be realized by single-unit facilities, or multiple-unit facilities that maintain separate UFSARs for each unit. In the Summary and Analysis of Public Comments accompanying the 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4) Start Printed Page 41055rule change published in the Federal Register (57 FR 39355, 1992), the NRC acknowledged that the final rule did not provide burden reduction to multiple-unit facilities sharing a common UFSAR. The NRC 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.” Granting this exemption would provide burden reduction to PBAPS while still assuring that revisions to the UFSAR are made at least every 24 months.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that it involves administrative activities unrelated to plant operation.
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 off site, and there is no increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve 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.
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 PBAPS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 18, 2001, the NRC staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Dennis Dyckman, of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Nuclear Safety Division, 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 the licensee's letter dated May 30, 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 Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.Start Signature
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July, 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John P. Boska,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-19593 Filed 8-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P