ML20086L387
| ML20086L387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1991 |
| From: | Chris Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086L390 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9112160200 | |
| Download: ML20086L387 (4) | |
Text
.
J i
.(
7590-01
)
g!ilTED S1 ATES_ NUCLEAR,, REGULATORY COMMISSION P H I L AD r. L P 91,A, E lJ C,T RJ,C, COM P A,NY PUP.LIC EEP.VICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY A,T L!!iJJ C,CJ,T Y,, { LJpJ,RJ p_ p,0M P A N Y GOCKET NOS. 50-277,,,5p,-278 50-352, A!!p,50,-353 EllVIRChMENTAL ASSE!SMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICAi4T,lMF,ACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (HRC or the Comission) is considering issuance of an exemption to Philadelphia ElectrM Company, et. al.
(PECo, the licensees), for operation of the Pea;h Bottom Atomic Power Station, t i-Units 2 and 3, located in York County, Pennsylvania, end the Limerick 4
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, located in tiontgomery and Chester Counties,
. Pennsylvania.
ENVIRONMEWTAL, ASSESSMENT, Identification of Proppsed_ Ac_t_ign:
The proposed exemptien would 1) grant a one-time schedular exemption to eight (8) Senior Reactor Operators limited to fuel handling (LSRCs) to permit them to take their first arnval requalification operating test during January 1992 instead of che end of 1991.
The Need foi the Proposed Action:
By letter. <!ated October 18, 1991, the licensee requested an exemption, in accordancuy ith 10 CFR 55.11 from the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) and 10 CFR 55.59(c)(4)(1) related to annual requalification operating tests for LSR0s. Pursuant. to 10 CFR 55.53(h) e licensee, as a ccndition of the license, A
u
t.
2 j
4 l
-shall complete a requalification prograne as described by 10 CFR 55.59.
In 10
)
CFR 55.59(c)(4)(l), the requalification piogram must include annual operating tests, and 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) stipulates that each licensee shall pass an
-armual operating test.
i NPC Ceneric Letter (GL) No. 89-03, "Operato,' Licensing National s
Ex?miM tion Schedule," issued March 24, 1989, specit1ed two examination munths for each facility during which operator licensing examinations would be conducted each year. The purpose of the ^ national examiration schedule is to provide a consistent time period for conducting the examinations at each Ncility so that the facility can establish a standard schedule for conducting the required licensed operator training, and so that the NRC can s hedule the resources required for conducting the examinctior.s.
The national examination-schedule months for LGS, Units 1 and 2, are January and July. The scheduled months for PBAPS are February and August. PECo is requesting, on behalf of th'e licensed LSR0s, a one-time schedular exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2) with regard to each individual licensed LSRO to conduct the first annual requalification.opertting test for the multi-site licensed LSR0s in January 1992 in conformance with the national examination schedule for LGS instead of the end of 1991. By letter dated _ October 18, 1991, from R. J.
Cente, NRC,' Region I, to D. H. Smith, PFCo, the NRC confirmed that arrangements
-hase been made for administration of fuel handling licensing examinations at LGS, for both Limerick and Peach Bottom, during the vicek of January 13, 1992.
Environmentaljmpacts_of_,the,[ropoyedActipn:
1 The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 55.59(c)(4)(1) and 10 CFR Part 55.59(a)(P) will.not increase the probability or consequences of eccidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released u
}
o' in s
3-
\\
offsite, and.there is no significant cumulative rediation exposure.
Accordingly, the Cormission concludes that these proposed exemptions would result in no significant radiological cavironnental impact. Additionally, it deet not affect non-radiological plant ef fluents and has no other environnental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed exernptions.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded inat there sre no significant environmental affects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemptions.
This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reauced operational flexitility.
Alternativ,e_Use o,f,Respurces:
This proposed action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Fina! Environmental Statement for the Limerick Generating Station, datti April 1984 or the Final Environmental Statement for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, dated April 1973.
Agencies and Persons Contclted:
The NRC stuff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
l-flHD!tlG OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, t
7
).
y 4
The Cenanission has determined not to prepare an eniironmental impact stater 4r t for the proposed exemptions.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for ererptien dated October 18, 1991, which is available for public inspection at the Corcission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, Lower Level, 2120 L Street, f.'W, Washington, DC, 20555, at the time:ick Local Public Docurrent Fcom located at Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, Pottstown, Per.r.sy lv a n ia 16464 and at the Peach Bottom Local Public Document Room located a t Goverr. men Publications Section, St3te Library of Pennsylvania, (REGIONAL DEPOSITORY) Education Building, Walnut Street and Lommonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Prcyland this 10th day of December 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. h!
L Char _les L. Miller, Director Project Directorate't-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l'
l l
\\?
i