[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19205-19206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9747]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-289]
GPU Nuclear, Inc., Et Al.; Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating
Station, Unit 1 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix R for Facility Operating License No. DPR-50
issued to GPU Nuclear, Inc., et al., (GPU or the licensee), for
operation of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1
(TMI-1), located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
Section III.G.2.c of Appendix R to 10 CFR part 50 requires the
enclosure of cable and equipment and associated non-safety circuits of
one redundant train of systems necessary to achieve and maintain safe
shutdown in a fire barrier having a 1-hour rating. In addition, fire
detectors and an automatic fire suppression system shall be installed
in the fire area. The licensee is seeking an exemption from these
requirements for 10 fire areas/zones: AB-FZ-3, AB-FZ-4, AB-FZ-5, AB-FZ-
7, CB-FA-1, FH-FZ-1, FH-FZ-2, FH-FZ-6, ISPH-FZ-1 and ISPH-FZ-2.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated December 31, 1996, as supplemented
September 8 and December 30, 1997; May 21, October 14, November 25, and
December 23, 1998.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The licensee is requesting an exemption from Appendix R, Section
III.G.2.c because modifications to achieve full compliance would cost
approximately $1.0 million. The proposed action is needed to reduce the
financial hardship of modifying existing barriers to achieve a 1-hour
fire rating, which modification would provide minimal safety benefit
according to the licensee.
Environment Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that reasonable assurance has been provided in fire
zones/areas AB-FZ-4, CB-FA-1, FH-FZ-1, FH-FZ-6, IPSH-FZ-1, and ISPH-FZ-
2, that one division of components necessary to achieve safe shutdown
will remain free of fire damage. Although the installed Thermo-Lag
barriers in these fire zones/areas have less than a 1-hour fire
endurance rating, they do have some significant resistance to fire.
Additionally, the areas where most of the subject barriers are located
have a low combustible loading, have manual suppression capability and
are equipped with automatic detection and suppression. The licensee has
committed to install automatic suppression in fire zone FH-FZ-6.
Additionally, the licensee has committed to install combustible gas
detectors in fire area CB-FA-1, which would provide prompt
identification of an acetylene gas leak and allow isolation of the gas
at its source prior to reaching the explosive limit. The staff has
determined that the combination of these features and circumstances
provides a level of protection adequate to meet the underlying purpose
of the rule. The Commission has determined that the exemption for fire
zones AB-FZ-3, AB-FZ-5, AB-FZ-7, and FH-FZ-2 should be denied because
an adequate level of fire safety would not be achieved.
The proposed action (hereinafter to mean the granting of an
exemption for fire zones/areas AB-FZ-4, CB-FA-1, FH-FZ-1, FH-FZ-6,
ISPH-FZ-1, and ISPH-FZ-2) 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
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 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 Commission concludes 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 alternative
action are similar.
[[Page 19206]]
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 13, 1999, the
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. Stan J.
Maingi, of the Bureau of Radiation Protection, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, 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 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 the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated December 31, 1996, as supplemented September 8
and December 30, 1997; May 21, October 14, November 25, and December
23, 1998, which are 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
LAW/Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania,
(Regional Depository) Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, P.O. Box
1601, Harrisburg, PA 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of April 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-9747 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P