ML20059A630
| ML20059A630 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire  |
| Issue date: | 08/15/1990 |
| From: | Matthews D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059A634 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008230147 | |
| Download: ML20059A630 (4) | |
Text
.
It j
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUKE POWER = COMPANY MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-369 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING'0F '
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
?
The 'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Conmission)'is considering l
issuance of an exemption' from the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to Duke Power Company (the licensee) for the McGuire Nuclear, Station, Unit-No.1, located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
1.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action: The exemption would grant -relief from Appendix J, Section Ill.D.I.(a).. insofar as it requires that the third of[a: set of three Type A (containment integrated leak rate) tests be conducted during.
the 10-year' inservice inspection-(ISI) outage. For McGuire Unit 1, the first 10-year ISI outage will occur in 1991 with the;end of fuel-cycle (E0C)-7.
Appendix J also requires that the tests be performed at approximately equal-intervals. Equal intervals would be maintained'at McGuire Unit 1 byitesting.
1 during the 1990 E0C 6 outage.
The exemption would permit the test for the first-10-yearISIoutagetobeperformedduringEOC6ratherthanE0C7without1thel need for repeat testing during the EOC 7 outage, j
1 ggge2ggg%@8$h9 e
}
.P i
'i i
..-..2--.
--,,_-.--..4
~.. _ _ _ _ _ _
2 1
j 3
The exemption is in response to the licensee's application for exemption dated February 20, 1990.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed exemption 1s needed to permit nearly equal intervals to' be maintained in the scheduling of Type A tests during the transition from the first 10-year ISI outage through the second and I
remaining ISI-periods. The interval used at McGuire is'specified in the-Technical Specifications and is 40 '* 10 months.
(A correspfding change to.
the Technical Specifications would be sede by license amendments.) Without'the exemption, a fourth test, occurring within about one year of the third, would need to be performed during the first ISI 10-year interval; this additional test, performed so soon after the previous' test, would be unlikely to reveal:
any significant change from the previous test, and would therefore be i
unnecessary and excessive. Moreover, the requirement that the third test occur during the 10-year ISI interval is of minimal safety significance when I
compared to the actual interval between tests.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The' proposed exemption affects only the scheduling of tests. The. exemption provides the scheduling i
flexibility needed to maintain appropriate intervals'between tests for-verifying containment leakage. integrity.= Moreover, containnent leakage integrity and assurances of containment leakage integrity are not-decreased by the exemption. The proposed exemption has no affect on any accident'and, therefore, potential radiological releases from'or within the boundary are 1
not increased. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant' radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
l
.... ~, _, -
t i.
3 With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption p
involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in l-10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no i
other environmental impact. Therefore, the Cosmission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental. impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
It has been concluded.that there is no significant adverse impact associated with the proposed exemption (or with its associated license amendment);.any alternatives to the exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption. This would not reduce any adverse environmental impact, but would require that the refueling outage I
for E0C 7 be extended to perform an additional and unnecessary test of l_
containment leakage integrity.
Alternative Use of Resources: This action involves no use of~ resources not
(.
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated April 1976 and January 1981 Addendum, for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units,1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The Connission's staff' reviewed the' licensee's i
request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
1 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental ~ impact i
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-enyironment.
?
... _ _ ~
..., _~
,,-m_
...,.., -. ~. _ _,..,,.,
n
,.e-i.
4 j
.j For further details with respect to this action, see-the request for the
~
l
. exemption dated February 20, 1990, which is available for public inspection l
at the Cosmiission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at, the Atkins Library, University of North Carolina, Charlotte i
(UNCCStation),NorthCarolina 28223.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of August.1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N s
47' I
David-8. Matthews, Director Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects-- l/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
I!
l f
i