ML20136D765
| ML20136D765 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1997 |
| From: | Milano P NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136D770 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9703130009 | |
| Download: ML20136D765 (4) | |
Text
_
?
l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0WIISSION i
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF
{
N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering 1
l issuance of an exemption for Facility Operating License No. DPR-28, issued to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee), for operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (the facility) located in Windham County, j
1 (NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4'
jdgDtification of Proposed Actions:
The proposed exemption would grant relief in certain outdoor areas of the protected area of the facility to allow use of security lighting for outdoor access and egress and the performance of one specified task in either of two locations for compliance with Section III.J of Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50.
The exemption would include outdoor portions of the protected area for access and egress and for supply of nitrogen from either of two outdoor locations: 1) the 15,000 gallon liquid nitrogen containment inerting tank located outdoors, east of the reactor building, or 2) nitrogen storage bottles located on the west wall of the reactor building equipment air lock.
The proposed exemption is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated June 17, 1996.
g3130009970305 p
ADOCK 05000271 PDR
l t
W j a
i The Need for the Pronosed Actions:
The need for this action arises for certain Appendix R fire scenarios whose safe shutdown strategy does not immediately depressurize the reactor and uses low pressure injections systems, and thus requires the safety relief valves (SRVs) to-be actuated multiple times during a cooldown. Although each SRV accumulator has capacity for at least five valve strokes, a long term source of nitrogen, beyond the capacity of the SRV accumulators is required in order to provide for additional valve strokes for some scenarios.
The nitrogen may be provided from either of two nitrogen storage locations.
Environment 1 Imoacts of the Proposed Actions:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed exemption and concludes that the proposed exemption will provide sufficient fire protection that there is no increase in the risk of fires at the facility.
Consequently, the probability of fires has not been increased and the post-fire radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined, nor does the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents.
The proposed exemption affects only the source of illumination credited for safe shutdown functions. No physical change results from the proposed exemption, and, as discussed above, the probability of fires has not been increased. Therefore, 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
I radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed actions involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in e
10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions.
Alternatives to the Proposed Actions:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed actions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed actions, the staff considered denial of the proposed actions. Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts of the proposed actions and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources:
These actions do not involve use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 26, 1997, the staff consulted with the Vermont State official, Mr. William K. Sherman of the Vermont Department of Pubile Service, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed actions. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed actions will not have a significar.t effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For further details with respect to the proposed actions, see the application dated June 17, 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 Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of March 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Q
Patrick A. Milano, Acting Director Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.