ML20215E039
| ML20215E039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1986 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215E028 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8612170204 | |
| Download: ML20215E039 (5) | |
Text
____
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ILLIN0IS POWER COMPANY CLINTON POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-461 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) plans to issue an amendment to an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 to the Illinois Power Company (the Licensee) for the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, (the facility) located in DeWitt County, Illinois.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Deferral of Preoperational Test Re, lated to a Portion of the Fuel Handling System Identification of Proposed Action: The proposed action would extend the duration of an exemption, which permits the licensee to defer completion of that f
portion of the preoperational test for the fuel handling system related to the transfer of fuel bundles under wet loading conditions.
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, (10 CFR Part 50)
Appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 61 requires, in part, that the fuel handling system be designed to prevent significant reduction in fuel storage coolant inventory under accident conditions.
By letter dated March 12, 1986, the licensee requested authorization to defer that portion of the fuel handling system preoperational test related to the transfer of fuel bundles under wet conditions until prior to exceeding five percent of rated power. Additionally, in a letter dated March 27, 1986, the
$$k2]DO 5
1 p
P
' licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 61, for operation of the fuel handling system under wet conditions. The staff, in NUREG-0853, Supplement 6, Appendix N Section 2.7 and in Section 2.D of the Clinton low power operating license, granted a schedular exemption from the requirements of GDC 61 until prior to exceeding five percent of rated power or before removal of the reactor pressure vessel head after initial criticality.
An environmental assessment-was performed and a final finding of no significant impact was made and published in the Federal Reoister (51 FR 25274) on July 11, 1986.
The licensee by letter dated October 24, 1986, requested an extension to the schedular exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 61, for the fuel handling system to permit a further deferral of the preoperational testing of this system under wet loading conditions until prior to off-loading of irradiated fuel. The supporting justification for the extension of the schedular exemption is contained in the licensee's October 24, 1986 submittal.
Need for Proposed Action: The extension to the schedular exemption is required so that the licensee may continue power operation beyond five percent of rated power without having to perform this test.
Performance of this test requires breaking of primary containment integrity and the operability of the fuel pool cooling system to flood the containment fuel storage pool. To satisfy both these conditions would delay completion of the startup test and power ascension programs.
Preoperational testing of that portion of the fuel handling system required to transfer fuel bundles under wet loading conditions will be completed prior to off-loading irradiated fuel.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action: The proposed extension to the schedular exemption would allow the licensee to defer preoperational testing of the portion of the fuel handling system related to the transfer of fuel bundles under wet loading conditions. Since the preoperational testing of that portion of the fuel handling system required to transfer fuel bundles under wet loading conditions can be performed anytime prior to off-loading irradiated fuel, requiring this portion of the system to be fully operational prior to exceeding five percent of rated power would create a hardship for the licensee without any compensatory increase in safety. The licensee, in its evaluation, has considered the potential for events which could require emergency off-loading of irradiated fuel and determined that there are no such events within the bounds of the design basis analysis contained in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis Report that would preclude completion of this test prior to the off-loading process.
The staff concludes that the probability of an accident will not be increased and the post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined due to the proposed relief. Moreover, the proposed relief will not otherwise affect radiological plant effluents, nor result in any significant occupational exposure. Likewise, the proposed relief does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts associated with this proposed relief.
Alternative to the Proposed Action: The staff has concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption.
Any alternatives to the exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact.
T;,.., >
4-The principal alternative would be to deny the requested relief and exemption. Such action would not reduce environmental impacts of the Clinton
. Power Station, Unit No.1 operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility and unwarranted delays in power ascension.
Alternative Use of Resources: The action associated with the granting of the proposed exemption as detailed above does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1" dated May 1982.
Acencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's submittal that supports the requested exemption. The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING 0F N0 SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing 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 this action, see the request for the exemption as listed herein, which is availablr for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at-the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1986.
DISTRIBUTION FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
Docket File M0'Brien NRC PDR OPirfo Local PDR EJordan PD#4 Readina BGrimes WBButler
~
JPartlow Walter R. Butler, Director BSiegel ACRS (10)
BWR Project Directorate No. 4 ivision of BWR Licensing M
PD#4/PM PD#4/D yFWrien BSieael:ca WButler (2/{/86 p/A[/86
\\'Z/ V86
\\
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested relief and exemption. Such action would not reduce environmental impacts of the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1 operations and would result in reduced operational flexibility and unwarranted delays in power ascension.
Alternative Use of Resources: The action associated with the granting of the proposed exemption as detailed above does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1" dated May 1982.
Acencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's submittal that supports the requested exemption. The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Conenission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
l For further details with respect to this action, see the request for the exemption as listed herein, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, t
l Illinois 61727.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of 1986.
i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
(_ -
Walter R. Butler, Director BWR Project Directorate No. 4 Division of BWR Licensing
- - -