ML20217J343
| ML20217J343 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1999 |
| From: | Emch R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217J316 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910250070 | |
| Download: ML20217J343 (4) | |
Text
_
p.
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO(APANY j
l DOCKET NOS. 50-395 V. C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR)
Part 50, Section 50.60(a) to the South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) for operation of the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, located in Jenkinsville, South Carolina.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ~
identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain provisions of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G. The NRC has established
, requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB)in nuclear power plants. As part of these requirements,10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G requires that pressure-temperature (P-T) limits be established for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) during normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate testing conditions. Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G states that *[t]he appropriate requirements...on pressure-temperature limits and minimum permissible temperature must be met for all conditions.'
Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50 specifies that the equirements for these limits are the American
(
Society of Mechanical Engineerc (ASME) Code,Section XI, Appendix G limits.
l 9910250070 991015
'l PDR ADOCK 05000395
~ t P
F a.
I I !
Pressurized water reactor licensees have installed cold overpressure mitigation systems / low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP) systems in order to protect the RCPB l
from being operated outside of the boundaries established by the P-T limit curves and to provide
. pressure relief on the RCPB during low temperature overpressurization events. The licensee is required by the V. C. Summer Technical Specifications (TS) to update and submit the changes to its LTOP 'setpoints whenever the licensee is requesting approval for amendments to the P-T limit curves in the V, C. Summer TS.
j Therefore, in order to address the provisions of amendments to the TS P-T limits and LTOP curves, the licensee requested in its submittal dated August 19,1999, that the staff i
exempt V. C. Summer from application of specific requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, and substitute use of ASME Code Case N-640 as an alternate reference fracture toughness for reactor vessel materials for use in determining the P-Tlimits.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for exemption contained in a submittal dated August 19,1999l and is needed to support the TS amendment that is cod.ained in the same submital and is being processed separately. The proposed amendment would revise the P-T limits of TS 3.4.4 for V. C. Summer related to the heatup, cooldown, and inservice test limitations for the Reactor Coolant System to a maximum of 33
. Effective Full Power Years (EFPY)..It will also revise TS 3/4/4.9, Low Temperature Overpressure Protection System, to reflect the revised P-T limits of the reactor vessel.
~
The Need for the Proposed Action 4
During staff review of this submittal, the staff determined that granting of an exemption for ASME Code Case N-640 is needed to revise the method used to determine the RCS P-T limits,
)
[
i since continued use of the present curves unnecessarily restricts the P-T operating window.
i i
M.D
.. ' Application of the Code case will, therefore, relax 'he LTOP operating window and reduce
( potential challenges to th reactor coolant system power-operated relief valves.
In the associated exemption, the staff has determined that, pursuant to 1
10 CFR 50,12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the regulation wii! continue to be served by the implementation of this Code case.
. Environmentalimoacts of the Proposed Action:
The' Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that
- the exemption' described above would provide an adequate margin of safety against brittle i
failure of the V. C. Summer reactor vessel.
The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types or amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and there is no'significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, i
there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
1
. With regard to potentia l nonradiological environmental impacts, the proposed action does riot involve any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmentalimpacts. Therefoie, there are no significant nonradiologicalimpacts associated
' with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental
)
impacts associated with the p oposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Actioc-As an' alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed
. action (i.e.,' the "nn-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 s'imilar,
h l
4 t-Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not invdive the use of any resources not previously considered in the i
Final Environmental Statement for the V. C. Summer Nuclear Station, dated May 1981.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on October 15,1999, the staff consulted with the i
South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil Autry of the Division of Radioactive Waste Management, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department of Health and Environmental Control, regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. t he State offic41 had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the environmental assessrnant, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not ta prepare an environmentalimpact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licenece 9 letter i
dated August 19,1999, which is available for public inspection at the Commiscion's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at Fairfield County Library,300 Washington Street, Winnsboro, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of October 1999.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
/
A'. c bf k l
' ( ' N ~ cd) :l) l Richard L. Emch, Jr., Section Chief, Section 1 I
Project Directorate ll Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation m