ML20082T493
| ML20082T493 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1995 |
| From: | Mckee P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082T496 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9505040053 | |
| Download: ML20082T493 (4) | |
Text
a
....a.-
.a..
1.. -
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSwN NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-421 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering Issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License No. NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 located in New London County, Connecticut.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to the extent that a partial exemption and a schedular exemption from the requirements of Section III.D.I.(a) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J would be granted. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of~ September 28, 1594, as supplemented on February 24, 1995.
The Need for the Prooosed Action:
The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to perform the third Type A test for the first 10-year Appendix J service period during the l
sixth refueling outage, instead of the fifth refueling outage. The exemption would permit a more flexible schedule for containment leakage testing and resulting in a significant cost savings to the licensee. The fifth refueling
)
i 9505040053 950428 i
PDR ADOCK 05000423 p
PDR 4
l
, outage began in April 1995, and the sixth refueling outage will be in 1997.
Therefore, the exemption would (1) permit the third and last Type A tests of the 10-year inservice inspection period to not correspond with the end of the current American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) inservice inspection interval, and (2) to extend the 10 year Appendix J Type A test interval to refueling outage 6, currently scheduled for April 1997, which would be an extension of 12 months.
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed partial exemption and schedular exemption would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and the proposed partial and schedular exemptions would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents. The licensee states that the existing Type B and C testing programs are not being modified by this request and will continue to effectively detect containment leakage caused by the degradation of active containment isolation components as well as containment penetrations.
It has been the consistent and uniform experience at the facility during the two Type A tests conducted on July 5,1989 and October 12, 1993, that any significant containment leakage paths are detected by the Type 8 and C testing. The Type A test results have only been confirmatory of the results of the Type B and C test results.
Therefore, application of the regulation in this particular circumstance would not serve, nor is it necessary to achieve, the underlying purpose of the rule. The licensee has stated to the NRC Project Manager that the general containment
"r inspection will be performed during refueling outage 5 although it is only required by Appendix J (Section V.A) to be performed in conjunction with Type A tests.
The NRC staff considers that these inspections, though limited in scope, provide an important added level of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary.
The proposed change will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable r
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological er.vironmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action 1
does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludas that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. 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.
(y s
.a e.
ru
~. -
- m. o u
.-m
.u.
.... a x
i i
1 4-Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on March 24, 1995, the staff consulted with the Connecticut State official, Mr. Kevin-McCarthy, Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no coments.
fjBQING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Acco:. ingly, the Comission has determined not to prepare
~
an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 28, 1994, as supplemented by letter dated February 24, 1395, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Docuinent Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Learning Resource Center, Three Rivers Comunity-Technichl College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 06360.
Dateo at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April 1995.
FOR THE UCLEAR REGULATORY CON 1!SSION f
Phillip/.McKee, Director Project Directorate I-3 bivision of Reactor Projects - I/II 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
._.