ML20195H556
| ML20195H556 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1988 |
| From: | Muller D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195H560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801200229 | |
| Download: ML20195H556 (4) | |
Text
e*-
p reog'o UNITED STATES
~g
. [
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 z
\\.....,o!
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY DOCKETS NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering issuance of exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, to Comonwealth Edison Company (CECO, the licensee) for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (Units 1 and 2) located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action: The proposed action would grant many specific plant exemptions from certain requirements for "Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability" prescribed in sub-sections III.G.1, III.G.2.a. and III.G.3 of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50.
In accordance with sub-section III.G.1, fire protection features shall be provided to assure at least one train of equipment necessary for hot shutdown would be undamaged by fire, and systems necessary for cold shutdown could be repaired within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. More specifically, sub-section III.G.2.a requires cables and equipment, and associated non-safety circuits, of redundant trains to be separated by a three hour rated fire barrier. Where provisions of sub-section III.G.2 cannot be met, then alternative or dedicated shutdown capability shall be provided in accordance with subsection III.G.3. However for any area, room, or zone provided with alternative or dedicated shutdown capability, a fire detection and fixed fire suppression system shall also be installed.
8801200229 880112 PDR ADOCK 05000254 F
im,
7590-01 The Need for the Proposed Action:
Since it is not possible to predict all conditions or plant configurations under which a fire can occur and propagate, l
the Appendix R rule only prescribes general fire protective measures. As such, there will be instances where plant specific configurations or system features could safely allow for different protection from fire damage than specified in the rule (e.g., section III.G).
For these situations, strict compliance may not be required to meet the underlyino purpose of the rule. Whereupon for special circumstances identified in 50.12 the licensee can be permitted to forego unnecessary plant modifications.
For the particular instances in this proposed action, the licensee has demonstrated by detailed fire hazards analysis that existing protection and/or other proposed modifications will provide a level of safety for certain plant areas and zones which is equivalent to the technical requirements in sub-sections III.G.1, III.G.2, and III.G.3 of Appendix R.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action: The proposed exemptions are intended to provide a level of safety equivalent to the technical requirements of Section III.G of Appendix R.
These exemptions will not change the types, or allow an increase in the amounts, of effluents that may be released offsite.
Nor would they result in an increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions.
7590-01 With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemptions involve features located entirely with the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20 They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no l
l other environmental impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the f
proposed exemptions.
Alterna_tive Use of_ Resources: This action does not involve the use of resources which were not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement (construction permit and operating license) for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
Alternative to the Prop,osed Actionj Since the Commission has concluded there o
are no measurable environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the exemptions would be to require rigid compliance with the requirements of Section III.G in Appendix R of 10 CFR 50. Such action wo ld not enhance the protection of the environment
/
and would result in unwarranted licensee expenditures of engineering and construction resources, as well as associated capital costs.
Agencies an_d Persons Consulted:
The Comission's staff reviewM the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPAC_T_
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemptions.
l i
7590-01,
Based upon the aforementioned environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that'the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further. details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letters requesting exemptions dated December 18, 1984, and as supplemented by letters dated December 4, 1985, June 25, 1986, July 22, 1986, September 30, 1987, October 1, 1987, November 20, 1987, November 23, 1987 and November 30, 1987. These letters are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555; and at the Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Ave, Dixon, Ill 61021.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of January 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
Daniel R. Muller, Director Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects PDIII-2:LA PDIII-2:PMy PDJppg:D LLuther M TRoss:bj /4.
08d11e'r
/ / f/88
//[/88
/ /f'/88
January 12, 1988 Dockets Nos.: 50-254 and 50-265 DISTRIBUTIO_N Ecket' Files OGC-Bethesda NRC & Local PDRs Edordan PDIII-2 Rdg. File JPartlow Mr. L. D. Butterfield, Jr.
GHolahan ACRS(10)
Nuclear Licensing Manager LLuther GPA/PA Commonwealth Edison Company TRoss PDIII-2 Plant File Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690
Dear Butterfield:
SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT -
1 APPENDIX R EXEMPTIONS (TAC NOS. 57282, 57283, 57284, 57285, 62024, 62025, 64493, AND 64494)
RE:
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units Nos. I and 2 Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.119, the Commission has requested the Office of the Federal Register to publish the enclosed "Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact." This notice is in regards to your requests, dated December 18, 1984, December 4, 1985, June 25, 1986, July 22, 1986, September 30, 1987, October 1, 1987, November 20, 1987, November 23, 1987, and November 30, 1987, for exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.
Sincerely, 5
Thierry M. Ross, Project Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
Enclosure:
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact cc w/ enclosure:
See next page kD r
u oss
/ ///88
/ /f/88
/ /(/88
ei.',
9 Mr. L. D. Butterfield, Jr.
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Connonwealth Edison Company Units 1 and 2 cc:
Mr. Stephen E. Shelton Vice President Iowa-Illinois Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 4350 Davenport, Iowa 52808 Mr. Michael Miller, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Mr. Richard Bax Station Manager Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 22710 206th Avenue North Cordova, Illinois 61242 Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22712 206th Avenue North Cordova, Illinois 61242 Chai rman Rock Island County Board of Supervisors 1504 3rd Avenue Rock Island County Office Bldg.
Rock Island, Illinois 61201 Mr. Michael C. Parker, Chief Division of Engineering Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor Springfield, Illinois 62704 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
, it'
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
/
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKETS NOS. 50-254 AND 50-265 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission is considering issuance of exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, to Comonwealth Edison Company (CECO, the licensee) for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (Units 1 and 2) located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would grant many specific plant exemptions from certain requirements for "Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability" prescribed in sub-sections III.G.1, III.G.2.a. and l
l III.G.3 of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50.
In accordance with sub-section III.G.1, fire protection features shall be provided to assure at least one train of I
equipment necessary for hot shutdown would be undamaged by fire, and systems necessary for cold shutdown could be repaired within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. More specifically, sub-section III.G.2.a requires cables and equipment, and associated non-safety circuits, of redundant trains to be separated by a three hour rated fire barrier. Where provisions of sub-section III.G.2 cannot be met, then alternative or dedicated shutdown capability shall be provided in accordance with subsection III.G.3. However for any area, room, or zone provided with alternative or dedicated shutdown capability, a fire detection and fixed fire suppression system shall also be installed.
0 7590-01 The Need for the Proposed Action:
Since it is not possible to predict all conditions or plant configurations under which a fire can occur and propagate, the Appendix R rule only prescribes general fire protective measures. As such, there will be instances where plar,. specific configurations or system features could safely allow for different protection from fire damage than specified in the rule (e.g., section III.G).
For these situations, strict compliance may not be required to meet the underlying purpose of the rule. Whereupon for special circumstances identified in 50.12 the licensee can be permitted to forego unnecessary plant modifications.
For the particular instances in this proposed action, the licensee has demonstrated by detailed fire hazards analysis that existing i
(
protection and/or other proposed modifications will provide a level of safety for certain plant areas and zones which is equivalent to the technical requirements in sub-sections III.G.1, III.G.2, and III.G.3 of Appendix R.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action: The proposed exemptions are intended to provide a level of safety equivalent to the technical requirements of Section III.G of Appendix R.
These exemptions will not change the types, or allow an increase in the amounts, of effluents that may be released offsite.
Nor would they result in an increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions.
l p.
3 7590-01 With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed exemptions involve features located entirely with the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20 They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have' no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions.
Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of resources which were not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement (construction permit and operating license) for Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
Alternative to the Prgosed Action-Since the Commission has concluded there are no measurable environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemptions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the exemptions would be to require rigid compliance with the requirements of Section III.G in Appendix R of 10 CFR 50. Such action would not enhance the protection of the environment and would result in unwarranted licensee expenditures of engineering and l
l construction resources, as well as associated capital costs.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
The Comission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
]
FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemptions, l
l
.a
~
7590-01 3 Based upon the aforementioned environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letters requesting exemptions dated December 18, 1984, and as supplemented by letters dated December 4,1985, June 25,1986, July 22,1986,
)
September 30, 1987, October 1, 1987, November 20, 1987, November 23, 1987 and November 30, 1987. These letters are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Wasnington, D.C. 20555; and at the Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Ave, Dixon, Ill 61021.-
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of January 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
Daniel R. Muller, Director Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects l
1 PDIII-2:LA PDIII-2:PMy PDlM.:D LLuther M TRoss:bj/4 DMlle'r
/ /r/88
//(/88
/ /r'/88
. _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ -