59752 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices

demonstrated a high reliability in

controlling fires during the incipient

stage, thereby limiting fire damage and

propagation until extinguishment can be

achieved through manual actions. The

licensee has stated that an upgrade of

the existing Thermo-Lag fire barriers to

achieve literal compliance with the

regulation is not feasible due to the

locations of the raceways; however, the

protection provided by the existing

Thermo-Lag and supplemented with fire

suppression capability by the additional

sprinkler heads would protect one train

of safe shutdown cables and satisfy the

underlying purpose of the rule. On the

basis of its review and evaluation of the

technical information provided in the

licensee’s exemption request and the

licensee’s response to the request for

additional information, the NRC staff

concludes that the licensee’s proposed

alternative means of protection coupling

the existing barriers with enhanced

suppression capability provides a level

of safety equivalent to that prescribed by

the regulation.

V.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and

(2) when special circumstances are

present. Special circumstances are

present whenever, according to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.’’

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G, Fire

Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability,

is to ensure the capability to achieve

and maintain safe shutdown conditions

during and after any postulated fire in

the plant. The staff has concluded that

the licensee’s proposed alternative

means of protection, as described in its

request for exemption from the

technical requirements of Section

III.G.2.c for auxiliary building fire area

AB–95–3B and G, AB–119–6A

(elevations 95 and 119) and the

intermediate building fire area IB–119–

201A (elevation 119), would provide

reasonable assurance that a level of

safety equivalent to that specified by the

regulation would be met. Therefore,

application of the one hour barrier

requirement under the above

circumstances is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

VI.

In consideration of the foregoing, the

NRC staff has concluded that the

licensee’s proposed use of an enhanced

automatic fire suppression system

coverage for these specific areas in lieu

of upgrading the existing Thermo-Lag

fire barriers to satisfy the 1-hour fire

rating requirement, is authorized by

law, will not present an undue risk to

public health and safety and is

consistent with the common defense

and security. The NRC staff has

determined that there are special

circumstances present, as specified in

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that

application of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R,

Section III G.2.c, is not necessary in

order to achieve the underlying purpose

of this regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission hereby

grants, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the

requested exemption. The granting of

this exemption is contingent upon (1)

the installation of the enhanced fire

suppression capability as described in

the licensee’s request, and (2)

maintaining in place the existing fire

barriers that are the subject of this

exemption.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 56207).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29140 Filed 11–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–302]

Florida Power Corporation;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of No Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission or NRC)

is considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to Florida Power

Corporation (the licensee), holder of

Facility Operating License No. DPR–72

for operation of the Crystal River Unit

3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3)

located in Citrus County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application dated

September 5, 1997, for exemption from

certain requirements of Appendix R,

‘‘Fire Protection Program for Nuclear

Power Facilities Operating Prior to

January 1, 1979,’’ to Title 10 of the Code

of Federal Regulations part 50 (10 CFR

part 50), Section III, Paragraph O, ‘‘Oil

Collection System for Reactor Coolant

Pump.’’ Specifically, the licensee

requests an exemption from the

Appendix R, Section III.O technical

requirements for an oil collection

system capable of collecting all

potential leakage for the CR3 Reactor

Coolant (RCP) Motor Remote Oil

Addition Lines (ROALs).

The Need for the Proposed

10 CFR part 50, Appendix A,

‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear

Power Plants,’’ Criterion 3 ‘‘Fire

Protection,’’ specifies that ‘‘Structures,

systems, and components important to

safety shall be designed and located to

minimize, consistent with other safety

requirements, the probability and effect

of fires and explosions.’’ 10 CFR part 50,

Appendix R, sets forth the fire

protection features required to satisfy

the General Design Criterion 3 of the

Commission’s regulations. Pursuant to

10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, Section III,

Paragraph O, ‘‘Oil Collection System for

Reactor Coolant Pump,’’ the RCP shall

be equipped with an oil collection

system which ‘‘* * * shall be capable

of collecting lube oil from all potential

pressurized and unpressurized leakage

sites in the reactor coolant pump lube

oil systems.’’

In 1985, CR3 added ROALs to the

original RCP oil fill lines in order to

eliminate the need to shutdown the

reactor, and to reduce personnel

radiation and heat stress exposure

during periodic RCP oil additions. At

that time, the licensee did not consider

the ROALs as a part of the RCP lube oil

systems and as a result, did not provide

a lube oil collection system to collect

potential leakages. As part of its current

Appendix R design review project, the

licensee has now determined the ROALs

to be a part of the RCP lube oil systems,

therefore, requiring a lube oil collection

system.

The licensee states that because the

ROALs are of a rugged leak tight design

and used only periodically in

accordance with controlled plant

procedures, the ROALs do not impact

post fire safe shutdown capability. As a

result, the licensee believes that a lube

oil collection system for the ROALs is
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 213 / Tuesday, November 4, 1997 / Notices 59753

not necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule. Exemption from

Appendix R, Paragraph O, requirements

is needed for the licensee to have

ROALs without a lube oil collection

system for collecting oil from potential

leak sites.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

With regard to environmental impact,

the Commission has evaluated the

proposed action as described below.

The proposed action will not result in

an increase in the probability or

consequences of accidents or result in a

change in occupational or offsite dose.

Therefore, there are no radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

The proposed action will not result in

a change in nonradiological plant

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

this action.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denial of the

proposed action. 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 did not involve the use of

any resources not previously considered

in the Final Environmental Statements

related to operation of CR3, dated May

1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on October 29, 1997 the staff consulted

with the Florida State Official, Mr. Bill

Passetti of the Florida Department of

Health and Rehabilitative Services,

regarding the environmental impact of

the proposed action. The State official

had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The Commission has determined not

to prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

Based upon the foregoing environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated September 5, 1997, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and

at the local public document room

located at Coastal Region Library, 8619

W. Crystal Street, Crystal River, Florida.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Leonard A. Wiens,

Acting Director, Project Directorate II–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29141 Filed 11–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–315 and 50–316]

Indiana Michigan Power Company;

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2; 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 its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. DPR–58 and DPR–74,

issued to Indiana Michigan Power

Company (the licensee), for operation of

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2, located in Berrien County,

Michigan.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is in response to

the licensee’s application dated August

5, 1997, for exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.71(e)(4)

regarding submission of revisions to the

Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR)

and design change reports for facility

changes made under 10 CFR 50.59 for

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2. Under the proposed

exemption, the licensee would schedule

updates to the single, unified FSAR for

the two units that comprise the Donald

C. Cook Nuclear Plant once per Unit 1

fuel cycle.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Section 50.71(e)(4) of Title 10 of the

Code of Federal Regulations requires

licensees to submit updates to their

UFSAR within 6 months after each

refueling outage providing that the

interval between successive updates

does not exceed 24 months. Since the

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.

1 and 2, share a common FSAR, the

licensee must update the same

document within 6 months after a

refueling outage for either unit. Because

the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant units

have alternating refueling outages, the

regulatory requirement to submit an

update after the completion of one

unit’s refueling outage when the other

unit is scheduled for a refueling outage

within 6 to 12 months results in an

administrative burden which does not

significantly enhance safety. The

proposed exemption is needed to permit

a single update of the unified FSAR for

the two Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant

units per each Unit 1 fuel cycle.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that it will not alter or affect

plant operation. Allowing the

exemption would maintain the Donald

C. Cook Nuclear Plant FSAR current

within 24 months of the last revision

and would not exceed the 24-month

interval for submission of the 10 CFR

50.59 design change report for either

unit.

No changes are being made in the

types or amounts of any radiological

effluent that may be released offsite and

there is no increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

exposure. Therefore, there are no

significant radiological impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action will not change nonradiological

plant effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Therefore, there are no significant

nonradiological impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. As an

alternative to the proposed action, the

NRC staff considered denial of the

proposed action. 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