ML20078B826
| ML20078B826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1994 |
| From: | Gundrum L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078B832 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9410270098 | |
| Download: ML20078B826 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY. ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-346 DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. UNIT NO. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of a partial exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, for Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 issued to the Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees), for operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear.
er Station, Unit No. 1, located in Ottawa County, Ohio.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption would relieve the licensee from the requirement of conducting a full pressure airlock leakage test, pursuant to Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, whenever airlocks are opened during periods when containment integrity is not required and no maintenance has been performed on the airlock that affects its sealing capabilities. The licensee would rely instead, on the seal leakage test described in Section III.D.2(b)(iii), when the reactor is in cold shutdown (MODE 5) or refueling (MODE 6) and when no maintenance has been performed on the airlock.
The licensee's request for exemption and the bases therefore are contained in a letter dated October 21, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
%O2hD
[
P
\\
required by Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, which requires at least 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per airlock to perform.
Exemption from full pressure leakage tests on airlocks opened during a period when containment integrity is not required, would provide the licensee with greater plant availability over the lifetime of the plant.
Environmental Impact of Proposed Action:
The proposed exemption would permit the substitution of an airlock seal leakage test (Section III.D.2(b)(iii) of Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50) for the full pressure airlock test, otherwise required by Section III.D.2(b)(ii) when the airlock is opened, while the reactor is in cold shutdown or refueling mode.
If the tests required by Section III.D.2(b)(i) and (iii) are current, and no maintenance performed on the airlock, then there will be adequate assurance of continued leak tight integrity of the airlock, and this exemption will not affect containment integrity, and does not affect the risk of facility accidents.
Thus, post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined, nor does the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents, nor result in any significant occupational exposure.
Likewise, the exemption does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Because it has been concluded that there is no significant impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative to the exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.
\\
l l3 Such action would not reduce environmental impacts of Davis-Besse, j
Unit No. I operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility or unwarranted delays in power ascension.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously cs sidered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Davis-Besse, Unit No. 1," dated October 1975.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff consulted with the Ohio State official regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The state official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the fo'regoing 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 1
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's request for exemption dated October 21, 1994, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW., Washington, DC, and the University of Toledo Library, Documents Department, 2801 Bancroft Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43606.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of October 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
n 02 u.n~!
Linda L. Gundrum, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I