ML20206E894

Notice of Issuance of Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re Util 861201 Request for Partial Exemption from 10CFR50,App J

ML20206E894
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	12/04/1986
From:	Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20206E897	List: ML20206E894
References
NUDOCS 8704130776
Download: ML20206E894 (3)

Text

.

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FLORIDA POWEF CORPORATION, ET AL.

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of a partial exemption from the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to Florida Power Corporation, et al.,

(the licensee) for Cryqtal River Unit No. 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, located in Citrus County, Florida.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action: The proposed exemption would relieve the licensee from the requirement of conducting a full pressure airlock leakage test, pursuant to Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, whenever airlocks are opened during periods when containment integrity is not required and no maintenance has'been performed on the airlock that affect its sealing capabilities. The licensee would rely, instead, on the seal leakage test described in Paragraph III.D.2(b)(iii) when the reactor is in cold shutdown (Mode 5) or refueling (Mode 6) and when no maintenance has been performed on the airlock.

The licensee's request for exemption and the bases therefor are contained in a letter dated December 1, 1986.

The Need for the Proposed Action:

The proposed exenstion is from performance of the leakage rate test reouired by Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, which requires at least 28 man-hours per airlock.

Fxemption from full pressure leakage-tests on airlocks opened durina a period when 8704130776 Es1204 ADOCK05000g2 PDR P

i

c containment inteprity is not required would provide the licensee with greater plant availability over the lifetime of the plant.

Environmental Impact of Proposed Action:

The proposed exemption would permit the substitution of an airlock seal ldakage test (Paragraph III.D.2(b)(fii) of Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50) for the full pressure airlock test otherwise recuired by Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) when the airlock is 4

opened while the reactor is in cold shutdown or refueling mode.

If the tests required by Paragraph III.D.2(b)(i) and (iii) are current, no maintenance having been performed dn the airlock, then there will be adequate assurance of continued leak tight integrii:y of the airlock, and this exemption will not affect contairment integrity and does not affect the risk of fccil'i*ty accidents.

5 Thus, post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined, nor does the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents, nor result in any significant occupational exposure.

Likewise, the exemption does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant. radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternative to the Proposed Action: Because it has been concluded that there is no measurable impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives to the exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater

. environmental impact.

The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption.

Such action would not reduce environmental impacts of Crystal River (Jnit 3 operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility or unwarranted delays in power ascension.

i

Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Related to the Proposed Crystal River Unit 3" dated May 1973.

Agencies and Persons Consulted: The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request that supports the proposed exemption.

The staff did not consult other agencies or persons.

FINDING OF N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Canmission 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 %xemption.

For further details with respect to"the proposed action, see the if censee's request for exemption dated December 1,1986, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Crystal River Public Library, 668 N.W. First Avenue, Crystal River, Florida 32629.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 4th day of December,1986 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ NEV John F. Stolz, Director PWR Project Directorate #6 Division of PWR Licensing-B

_