ML20115B574
| ML20115B574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1996 |
| From: | Nerses V NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20115B576 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9607100217 | |
| Download: ML20115B574 (4) | |
Text
-.
7 7590-01
- ) -
MIIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dj!KE POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-369 AND 50-370 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTALhSSESSMENTANDFINDINGOF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17, issued to Duke Power Company (the-licensee), for operation of the McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,. located in Mecklenburg, North Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
,By letter dated March 4, 1996, Duke Power Company (DPC) submitted a proposal for amendments to the Facility Operating Licenses that would allow the McGuire Units 1 and 2 Containment Airborne Particulate Radiation Monitors (CAPRMs,1/2 EMF 38(L)) to be reclassified in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) as non-seismic Category I.
During a DPC engineering review of the seismic classification of these CAPRMs, it was determined that these monitors are not seismic Category I.
Furthermore, DPC had documents that showed that these monitors are not required nor were they ever intended to be seismically qualified. Also, in a DPC letter to the NRC dated March 25, 1981, DPC further stipulated that the CAPRMs were not safety related.
However, none of this E
information was reflected in the McGuire FSAR.
By letter dated March 4, 1996, the licensee stated that the matter involved an unreviewed safety question and requested amendments to its Facility Operating Licenses including proposed changes to the FSAR, which would clarify that the CAPRMs are not designed to remain functional following i
9607100217 960703 PDR ADOCK 05000369 P
o i a safe shutdown earthquake (SSE).
Further, the licensee has proposed an alternative to Position C.6 of Regulatory Guide (AG) 1.45, " Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary Leakage Detection Systems," by showing that adequate instrumentation and procedures will be available to assess conditions inside containment following a seismic event comparable to an SSE and that, accordingly, the seismic qualification requirement for the CAPRMs may be deleted from the FSAR.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is needed so that the appropriate seismic qualification for the CAPRMs can be reflected in the FSAR.
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revisions to the FSAR. The proposed revisions would permit the Containment Airborne Particulate Radiation Monitors (l/2 EMF 38(L)) at McGuire Units 1 and 2 to be classified as non-seismic Category I.
The safety considerations' associated with this re-classification have been evaluated by the NRC staff.
The staff has concluded that the licensee has demonstrated an acceptable alternative to Position C.6 of RG 1.45 by showing that adequate instrumentation and procedures will be available to assess conditions inside containment following a seismic event comparable to an SSE. The proposed changes have no adverse effect on the probability of any accident. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of any radiological effluents that may be released offsite.
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 amendments.
o
- g. With regard to potentia' nonradiological impacts, the proposed action involves 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 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 environmental impact need not be evaluated. -The principal alternative to this action would be to deny the requested amendments.
Such action would not-reduce the environmental impacts of plant operations.
Alternative Use of Resources _:
This. action,does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of
)
McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2," dated April 1976.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 8, 1996
, the NRC staff consulted with the North Carolina State official, Mr. J. James of the Division of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The State official had no comments.
i
I*
1 a
1 1 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the 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 determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendments.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's letter dated March 4, 1996, which is 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 J. Murrey Atkins Library, University of North Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC Station),
Charlotte, North Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 1996.
FOR'THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
Victor Nerses, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation JL