[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 129 (Thursday, July 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35239-35240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16542]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 5-278]
PECO Energy Company; Public Service Electric and Gas Company;
Delmarva Power and Light Company; Atlantic City Electric Company; Peach
Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3; Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption to the PECO Energy Company, et al.
(the licensee) for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit
3, located in York County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Section III.D.1.(a). Section III.D.1(a) requires a set of
three Type A tests (i.e., Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test
(CILRT)) to be performed at approximately equal intervals during each
10-year service period and specifies that the third test of each set
shall be conducted when the plant is shut down for the performance of
the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI). The request involves a one-time
schedular exemption from the requirements of Section III.D.1(a) that
would extend the PBAPS, Unit 3 Type A test service period and allow the
three Type A tests in the current service period to be performed at
intervals that are not approximately equal. Hence, this one-time
exemption would allow the third, Unit 3, Type A test to be performed
during refueling outage 11, scheduled to begin in September 1997,
approximately 70 months after the last Unit 3 test, thereby coinciding
with the 10-year plant ISI refueling outage.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated November 21, 1994.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is required in order to allow the third Type A
test to be performed during the eleventh Unit 3 refueling outage
scheduled to begin in September 1997, concurrent with the 10-year plant
inservice inspections. Without the exemption, the licensee would be
required to perform a Type A test during both refueling outage 10,
scheduled to begin in September 1995 and refueling outage 11.
Performing the Type A test during two consecutive refueling outages
would result in increased personnel radiation exposure and increased
cost to the licensee. With the exemption, the third Type A test would
be performed during the eleventh Unit 3 refueling outage which would
thus align the start of the third 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, 10-year
service period with the start of the third 10-year ISI period.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed the evaluation to the action and
concludes that this action would not significantly increase the
probability or amount of expected primary containment leakage. The
performance history of Type A leak tests at PBAPS, Unit 3, demonstrates
adequate margin to acceptable leak rate limits. No time-based failure
mechanisms were identified that would significantly increase expected
leak rates over the proposed extended interval. The three historical
Type A test failures at PBAPS, Unit 3, in April 1977, September 1981
and August 1983, were determined to be activity-related failures, which
would not be related to an extended test interval. Thus radiological
release rates will not differ from those determined previously and
would not be expected to result in undetectable leak rates in excess of
the values established by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
Consequently, the probability of accidents would not be increased,
nor would the post-accident radiological releases be greater than
previously determined. The proposed action does not otherwise affect
radiological plant effluents or increase occupational radiation
exposures. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed
action would result in no significant radiological environmental
impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted
areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant
environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be
evaluated. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the
request. Such action would not reduce environmental impacts of plant
operation and would result in increased radiation exposure to plant
personnel.
[[Page 35240]]
Alternate Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 27, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Stan Maingi, of the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated November 21, 1994, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Government Publications Section, State
Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education Building,
Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects -- I/
II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-16542 Filed 7-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
