ML20080N349
| ML20080N349 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1995 |
| From: | Dick G NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080N354 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9503060236 | |
| Download: ML20080N349 (5) | |
Text
- -
v a
Ty 'j.c A
l i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION COMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY DOCKET N05.' 50-373 AND 50-374-L LASALLE COUNTY STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-11 and i
NPF-18, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee), for operation of 1
the LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, located in LaSalle County, Illinois.
~
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4
Jdgniification of Pronosed Action l
Section III.D.1(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires the performance of three Type A tests (overall integrated leakage rate tests) l (ILRT), at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period, with the third test of each set being conducted when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant inservice inspections.Section III.A.6(b) of Appendix J
)
to 10 CFR Part 50 specifies additional requirements -if two consecutive periodic Type A tests fail to meet the applicable acceptance criteria. The i
additional requirements entail performing Type A tests at each plant shut down for refueling or eighteen month interval, whichever occurs first, until two I
consecutive Type A tests meet the acceptance criteria, after which, the testing schedule of Section III.D can be resumed. LaSalle County Station, Unit 2, experienced Type A test failures for the "as-found" condition at the first, third and fourth refueling outages as a result of penalties from local i
E A N o E 373 p
PDR f
,c.
n -
,. _,. n.., _....
1-4 T
leak rate test (LLRT) (Type B and C) failures. Pursuant to the requirements of Section III.A.6(b), a Type A test was performed during the fifth refueling outage for Unit 2 and the results satisfied the applicable acceptance criteria. Without the requested exemption, another Type A test will need to be performed during the sixth refueling outage for Unit 2 (scheduled for early 1995) due to the requirements of both,Section III.A.6(b) which requires two consecutive successful tests prior to resuming the normal testing interval and Section III.D.1(a) because the sixth refueling outage is the last refueling outage of the first 10-year plant inservice inspections period. The licensee 1
proposes to resume the testing interval of Section III.0, based upon the successful test during the fifth refueling outage and the creation of a corrective action plan for Type C test failures, and decouple the Type A test schedule from the inservice inspection period. The result of this proposal would be that the next scheduled Type A test would be performed during the i
seventh refueling outage for Unit 2 (currently scheduled for late 1996) in accordance with a test interval of between thirty and fifty months.
An example is provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) of a special circumstance for which the NRC will consider granting exemptions that involve cases for which the application of the regulation is not necessary to achieve I
the underlying purpose of the rule.
The licensee completed a successful ILRT test during the fifth refueling outage for Unit 2 and has developed a corrective action plan for leakage.through specific containment penetrations.
Strict application of Appendix J would require performance of another ILRT during the sixth refueling outage in order to address the additional testing requirements of Appendix J,Section III.A.6(b) and the Section III.D.1(a) l i
.- l
e s
- (
_3_
i Q
requirement to perform an ILRT during the 10-year plant inservice inspections.
In order to avoid performance of an ILRT during the sixth refueling outage, the licensee has proposed a one-time exemption from Section III.A.6(b)
(additional testing requirements) and a permanent exemption from Section III.D.1(a), in order to de-couple the Appendix J ILRT test schedule and the 10-year inservice inspection periods. Granting the exemption would result in the performance of the next Unit 2 ILRT during the seventh refueling outage, which is consistent with the regular testing interval of approximately once per forty months.
The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed exemption would allow the ficensee to resume a normal ILRT testing interval and thereby preclude the need to perform an ILRT during the sixth refueling outage of LaSalle, Unit 2.
Performance of an ILRT during the upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage would result in the collection of significant radiation dose, approximately 3 person-rems, by licensee personnel. The need for the exemption results from the requirement to perform the ILRT during refueling outages associated with the 10-year plant inservice inspections and the requirement to perform additional ILRT testing in the event that j
consecutive ILRTs fail, even if those failures are a result of leakage through identified penetrations.
Environmental Imoacts of the Pronosed Action The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed exemption and concludes that granting the one-time relief from Section III.A.6(b) and granting relief from Section III.D.1(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 does not affect the configuration of plant systems or plant operating practices.
~
l 1. c )h', '.,
i d
4, i
ri The proposed exemption is limited to the scheduling of a required Type A test during the sixth refueling outage of Unit 2 and a subsequent decoupling of the Type A tests from the inservice inspection period. Previous testing has demonstrated the integrity of the containment structure.
Leakage through containment penetrations and valves would continue to be identified by performance of LLRT. Therefore, no increase in the release of radioactive materials following an accident would result from the revision of the Type A test schedule. Changes to the Type A test schedule do not affect the radioactive effluent releasts during normal operation. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemption only involves the scheduling of ILRT testing.
It does not affect j
nonradiological plant effluents and there are no other nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption and require the licensee to conduct the ILRT during the sixth refueling outage of LaSalle, Unit 2.
Denial would not significantly reduce the environmental impact of plant operation and would result in lost electrical generation and expense of significant licensee resources.
i
.. x..
t yb.
s d6 Alternate Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the LaSalle County Station dated Nowaber 1978.
Aaencies and Persons Contacijtd The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and consulted with the
-Illinois State official. The State Official had no comments regarding the NRC's proposed action.
[]/QING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for exemption dated October 24, 1994, which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the local public document room, the Public Library of Illinois Valley Comunity College, Rural Route No.1, Oglesby, Illinois.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of March 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Georg
. Dick, Jr., Acting Director Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
y
-