ML20086Q932

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Issuance of Exemption from License NPF-38.Proposed Action Would Provide one-time Interval Extension for Type a Test from Sept 1995 to 1997 Refueling Outage

ML20086Q932
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	07/14/1995
From:	Chandu Patel NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20086Q935	List: ML20086Q932
References
NUDOCS 9507280259
Download: ML20086Q932 (4)

Text

n V

e u.

7590-01 UNITED STATES" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'ENTERGY OPERATIONS. IdC.

DOCKET NO, 50-382 WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC 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-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station Unit, No. 3 (Waterford 3) located in St. ' Charles Parish, Louisiana.

ENVIR0' MENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:

This Environmental Assessment has been prepared'to address potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of November 16, 1993, as supplementedDon August 19 1994', March 30, and June 19, 1995.

The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements-of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Pragraph Ill.D.).(a), to the extent that a one-time interval extension for the Type A test (containment; integrated leak rate ' test) by approximately 18 months, from.the September 1995 refuelingL outage to the refueling outage in 1997, would be granted.

The Need for the Proposed Action:

The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the Type A test from the September 1995 refueling outage, to the 1997 refueling outage, thereby saving the cost of performing the test and eliminating the test period from the critical path time of the outage.

l 1

9507280259 950714 "

')

PDR ADCCK 05000382 l

P pggt I

N F

.g.

. ' Environment al Impacts of the Proposed Action:

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed'one-time exemption would not increase the probability or consequences o.f accidents previously analyzed and the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents.

The licensee has analyzed the results of previous Type A tests performed at Waterford 3 to show good containment performance and will continue to be required to conduct the Type B and C local leak rate-tests which historically have been shown to be the principal means of detecting

. containment leakage paths with the Type A tests confirming the Type B and C test result s.-

It is also noted that the licensee will perform the visual containment inspection although it is only. required by Appendix J to be conducted in conjunction wih 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 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 individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined T

in 3D CFR Part 20.

It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has I

, no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes 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 environtental impact need not be evaluated.

As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action.

Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.

The environmental impact of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources:

This action does not irvolve the use of any resources not previously considered in the final Environ ental Statement for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit No. 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted:

In accordance with its stated policy, on June 30, 1995, the NRC staff consulted with the Louisiana State official, Prosanta Chowdhun of the LA Radiation Protection Division, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.

The State official had no comments.

l FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that i

the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

i

for further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated November 16, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated August 19, 1994, March 30, and June 19, 1995, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 1995.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CI, s e Pa ex Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

_