ML20045D501

Environ Assessment & Fonsi Re Licensee Request for Exemption from Requirements of Section III.D.1(a) of App J to 10CFR50

ML20045D501
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	06/22/1993
From:	Chan T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20045D502	List: ML20045D501
References
NUDOCS 9306290074
Download: ML20045D501 (4)

Text

- - -. -

E.1 x

J 7590

• UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.

WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT 3.

DOCKET NO. 50-382 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of Section.III.D.I.'(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),

3 for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, located.in Saint Charles.

Parish, Louisiana.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would grant an exemption from Section III.D.I.(a)-of-Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, which requires a set of three Type A tests-(containment integrated leak rate tests, or CILRTs) be performed, at.

approximately equal intervals, during each 10-year service period. This licensee request is for a one-time exemption from the requirement that the third Type A test of the first 10-year service period be performed at the required interval during the service period. The exemption would extend the third interval by approximately 4 months within the first 10-year-service period.

i The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request for exemption dated May 7, 1993.

i 9306290074 930622 PDR ADOCK 050003B2.

1 P

PDR

)

J

. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed exemption is needed because the licensee's current refueling outage schedule requires the third CILRT for the-first 10-year f

service period be performed at 54 months, which is not consistent with the-

"approximately equal interval" provision of Appendix J or with the technical specification (TS) requirement of 40110 month intervals.

(CILRTs are generally performed coincident with refueling outages due_to the time t

required for their performance.) The first and second CILRT testing intervals for the first 10-year service period were 32 and 36 months.

Without this exemption, the licensee would be required to perform the third CILRT at a 34-month interval and perform an additional (fourth) CILRT-during the refueling outage for the first 10-year inspection.

The licensee has also requested a one-time change to the TS; this will be addressed by a separate NRC action.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The Commission's staff has determined that granting the proposed exemption would not significantly increase the' probability or amount of expected primary containment leakage and that containment integrity would thus be maintained.

The current requirement'in Section III.D.I.(a) that three Type A tests be performed would continue to be met, except one interval (at Refueling Outage 7) will be longer than the approximately equal interval and would also be longer than specified in the Waterford TS.

I consequently, the probability of accidents would not be increased, nor would the post-accitient radiological releases be greater than previously determined. Neither would the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Therefore, the Commission's staff concludes

~

_3_

that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption involves a change to surveillance requirements.

It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.

Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

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 Resourcgs This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the " Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No.

3," dated September 1981.

Agencies and Persons Consulted l

The staff consulted with the State of Louisiana regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.

FINCING 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, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

i A

s... -.

1 For further details with respect to this action, see the request for amendment dated May 7,1993, 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 the University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of June 1993 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f

/

.&% - G

/,%

Terence L. Chan, cting Director Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

.