ML20215A016
| ML20215A016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/09/1987 |
| From: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215A019 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706160469 | |
| Download: ML20215A016 (4) | |
Text
...
s T
'N:
June 9,1987 7590-01 o
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION H_00STON LIGHTING AND POWER COMPANY, ET. AL.
4 SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNIT NO. 1 4
DOCKET NO. 50-498 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDINGS OF NO SIGNIFICANT-IMPACT The U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of a Schedular Exemption from a portion of the requirements of General f
Design Cr terion (GDC) 57 (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A) to the Houston Lighting i
l and Power Company, acting for itself and for the City of San Antonio (acting' by' f
and through the City Public Service' Board of San-Antonio), Central Power and Light Company, and the City of Austin, Texas (the applicants).
The Schedular i
Exemption would apply to the South Texas Project (STP) Unit 1 located in Matagorda County, Texas.
The limited exemption would end after the'first refueling outage of the South Texas Project,-Unit 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT j
Identification of Proposed Action: The Schedular Exemption would permit the applicants to deviate from the requirements oflGDC 57 applicable to the'Com-ponent Cooling Water (CCW) piping system inside containment which serves both the essential-and non-essential cooling functions to the Reactor Containment Fan Coolers (RCFC's).
In this case, the essential ' system is CCW piping system associated with providing cooling water to the RCFC's. The'non-essential system-is the chilled water supply to the RCFC's.
1
~
i 8706160469 870609 PDR ADOCK 05000498-A.
--.,,+.-m.
,,,,.a-.,,,~-
- June 9,1987 Need for Proposed Action: The proposed Schedular Exemption is needed in order for.the applicants to meet the scheduled Unit 1 fuel load date. The i
applicants would not be required to perform plant modifications immediately which they propose to make so that the relevant CCW system design would be i
in compliance with GDC 56, and would no longer be covered by GOC 57. The plant modifications would be required to be completed before start-up after the first refueling outage.
The existing containment isolation provides considerable assurance that radioactive material will not escape across the containment boundary in case of an accident. This assurance is based on the fact that the CCW piping within containment is of seismic Category I designation and designed to withstand pressures higher than the maximum accident related pressure within containment.
The CCW lines to the RCFC's do not connect with the' reactor coolant pressure 4
boundary.
A delay of fuel loading is not justified under the circumstances.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action:
The proposed Schedular Exemption would not affect the environmental impact of the facility. The like-l lihood of a breach in the CCW piping is extremely small and would have no significant effect on the overall plant accident risk.
The Schedular Exemption does not otherwise affect radiological plant
)
effluents.
Likewise, the relief granted does not affect non-radiological plant 4
effluents,-and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the Schedular Exemption.
a +
0
- L June 9,1987 The proposed Schedular Exemption involves design features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.~
It does not affect non-radioactive effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no non-radiological impacts associated with this proposed Schedular Exemption.
Since we have concluded that there are no measurable negative environ-mental impacts associated with this Schedular Exemption, any alternatives would
- not provide any significant additional protection of the environment. The alternative to the Schedular Exemption would be to require literal compliance with GDC 57 for the duration of the license.
This would restrict the onset-of plant operation.
Alternative Use Of Resources: This action does not involve the use of 1
resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-1171) for STP, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Contacted:_ The NRC staff reviewed the. applicants' request and applicable documents referenced therein that suppport this Sche-i dular Exemption for STP, Units 1 and 2.
The NRC did not consult other agencies or persons.
1 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact state-ment for this action. Based upon the environmental assessment, we conclude that this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
_2.
. June 9, 1987 For details with respect to this action, see the request for exemption dated May 15, 1987.
This document, utilized in the NRC staff's technical evaluation of the exemption request, is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington,.D.C., and at the Wharton County Junior College, J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boiling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.
The staff's technical evaluation of the request will be published with the Operating License (if it is granted) and will also be available for inspection at both locations listed above.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Dennis M. Crutchfield, Dir tor Division of Reactor Proje s, III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
I I
,.,