ML20211F397
| ML20211F397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/25/1999 |
| From: | Raghavan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211F402 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9908300324 | |
| Download: ML20211F397 (4) | |
Text
,. _.
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362 SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNITS 2 AND 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its regulations to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-10 and NPF-15, issued to Southern California Edison (the licensee), for operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), Units 2 and 3, located ig San Diego County, Califamia.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would exempt Southem California Edison from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, " Standards for combustible gas cor. trol system in light-water cooled power reactors," and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 41, ' Containment atmosphere clean-up."
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption dated September 10,1998, as supplemented July 19,1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would allow the licensee to remove hydrogen control requirements from the SONGS Units 2 and 3 design basis. The hydrogen control requirements in the SONGS design basis are not required to provide assurance that the containment would not B
9908300324 990025 PDR ADOCK 05000361 P
F-i 2-fait due to combustible gas accumulation and ignition during accidents where fission products would be present in the containment atmosphere. The exemption would also allow the licensee to modify emergency operating instructions to remove operator action requirements for controlling hydrogen concentration in containment because the hydrogen control requirements are no longer necessary.
EnvironmentalImoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action. Current design analyses assess the potential for offsite dose consequences based on maximum allowable leakage and the potential for containment failure. The proposed exemption does not change the allowed leakage, and therefore does not affect the offsite dose consequences based on this criteria. The licensee has concluded and the Commission agrees that removing the hydrogen control systems will not result in containment failure for any postulated accident or normal operating conditions. The proposib' action 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 occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological ervironmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historical sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other
(
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
1 J
.. Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the "no-action" alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources:
c i
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1981, with Errata dated June 1981.
Acencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 6,1999, the staff consulted with the Califomia State official, Mr. Steven Hsu of the Radiologic Health Branch, State Department of Health Services, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 4
{
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
l Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact
]
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 10,1998, as supplemented by letter dated July 19,1999, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building,2120 L i
J
.. Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Main Library, University of California, Irvine, California 92713.
1 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of August 1999.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
i WL Ab (
i L. Raghavan,6enior Project Manager, Section 2 Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning o
Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
)
-_