ML20066K821
| ML20066K821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities, 05000365  |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1991 |
| From: | Barrett R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066K826 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9102280220 | |
| Download: ML20066K821 (4) | |
Text
__ _
y 7
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- COMMONWEALTH-EDISON COMPANY QUAD' CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 254 AND 50-265-
)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
+
AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT-The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' (the Commission)-is considering-issuance 'of: exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix R,1 to Connonwealth Edison Company- (Ceco, the licensee), for _ operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in. Rock Island County,
' Illinois.
? ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Act.on The' proposed action would grant severa1' specific plant exemptirns from certain: requirements of " Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power Facilities-Operating Prior to' January.1,1979" prescribed in Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50..
These requirementszare:- (1) that the' plant be able to achieve hot shutdown lwithout _ performing. repairs; (2) that cable and equipment and associated'
- non-safety circuits of redundant trains;be separated by a horizontal-' distance of more than 20 feet (Section 211.G.2.b of-Appendix R); and (3) that. emergency lighting with _an;B-hour battery power supply be-provided in areas needed for-safe shutdown (Section III.J).
i y
1The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request for exemptions =-dated September 30,1987, October 1, 1987, November 23, 1987, and.
" ~
! April 11,1990. -
)
In addition, the proposed action would change the combustible load
= limits in_ the. Exemption-that was granted on August 18, 1989.
l J
9102280220 910221' PDR ADOCK 05000254
--- ~ ~ ~ ~~~'~~~~
4*
,l'
( -
4 The Need-for the Proposed Action g
Since.it is not possible to predict all conditions or plant 7
configurations under which a fire can occur and propagate, the Appendix R rule only prescribes general fire protective measures. As such, there will be instances where plant specific configurations or system features could safely allow for'different protectior, from fire damage than specified in the rule.
For' these situations, strict compliance may not be required to meet the-4 t
3
. underlying purpose of the rule. Whereupon, for special-circumstances.
1; identified in Section 50.12; the licensee can be permitted to forego unnecessary plant modifications.
For the particular instances in this proposed action, the
^
licensee has demonstrated, by detailed fire hazards analysis, that existing protection and/or other praposed modifications will provide a level of safety -
for certain plant areas and zones which is equivalent to the technical
[
r'equirements in_ Appendix R.
Environmental _ Impact of the Proposed Action The _ proposed: exemptions-are intended.to provide a level.of safety v
equivalent to the technical requirements of Appendix R.
These exemptions will
.not change'the types, or allow an increase in the amounts, of effluents'that may beLreleased offsite.
Nor would they result in an increase in individual or cumulative-occupational radiation' exposure. Therefore, the Conunission concludes that there are no significant rNiological environmental impacts--
- associated with the proposed exemptions.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemptions involve features located entirely within the restricted areas as defir,ed in 10 CFR:20. They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no r
,f
- 4 ~-
-- 3 --
t other environmental impact. Therefore. the Commission concludes that there
.are no'significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions.
Alternative _ to the Proposed Action-
-i Since the Commission has concluded there are no measurable environmental impacts associated with the. proposed exemptions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal' alternative to the exemptions would be to require rigid compliance with the requirements of' Appendix R of 10 CFR 50. Such action would not enharce the protection:of the environment and would result in unwarranted licensee expenditures of engineering.and Fonstruction resources, as well' as associated capital costs.
-Alternative-Use of Resources' This action does not involve th'e use of-any resources not previously-t considered in the Fina'l Environmt.atal Statement (construction permit and operating license) for Quad Cities Nuclea'r Power Station, Units I and 2, dated l
September 1972?
h Agencies and' Persons Consulted The NRC steff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other
- agencies or~ persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFCANT IMPACT l-The Commissir
'.aas determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement-for-the' proposed exemptions.
Based upon the foregoing, environmental assessment, the Commission
[
concludes that the proposed actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
~
- z..
< -y y,
-f ; q..
~
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's
- letters dated September 30 1987, October 1,1987, November 23, 1987'andL j
April:11, 1990.1 These letters =are available for public-inspection at the
-j
-Commission's~Public Docunent Rooin, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
1 l, o i
Washington, D.C., Land at the Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, 1
IllinoisE61021.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this? 21st' day of. February,- 1991.
~
L
.FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULAT RY COMMISSION
'I j
s.
~ Rich rd arrett, Director.
I Project Directorate III '
Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation-o
'I q
1 f
F i
i
-.