ML20235X035
| ML20235X035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1989 |
| From: | Calvo J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235X040 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903130291 | |
| Download: ML20235X035 (4) | |
Text
_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7590 -
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-498 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C'ommission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-76, issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company, (the licensee), for operation of the South Texas Project, Unit 1, located in Matagorda County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendment would revise the provisions in the Technical Specifications (TS) relating to the toxic gas monitoring system.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated March 8, 1988.
The Need for_ the Proposed Action:
The proposed change to the TS is required in order to improve the operational reliability of the toxic gas monitoring system as well as reduce the number of. unnecessary engineered safety feature (ESF) control room heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) recirculation actuations.
Environmental Impacts of the_ Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the Technical Specifications. The proposed revision would allow the licensee to:
(1) revise the toxic gas monitor ESF actuation logic to provide an actuation i
1 8903130291 890301 PDR ADOCK 05000499 A
4 I signal on a two-out-of-two logic for monitor failure instead of a one-out-of-two logicasexistsinthepresentdesign(thehightoxicgasactuationofone-out-of-two is retained); (2) provide separate power supplies'from non-Class 1E uninterruptable sources to each monitor; (3) provide a separate control room annuciator for "High Toxic Gas Concentration" and " Monitor Trouble"; (4) relo-cate the sample intake duct nearer'the building entrance to reduce the volume of toxic gas which would enter the control room before the isolation dampers close; (5) delete hydrazine from the FSAR and TS as a monitored / isolated actuation chemical because control room habitability calculations demonstrate that the l
control room operators will not be incapacitated by a postulated hydrazine spill; (6) increase the setpoint for the ammonia channel in the FSAR and TS to 25 parts per million (ppm) because the revised calculations utilizing techniques in NUREG/CR-1741 demonstrate the operators would have adequate time to don breathing apparptus after a toxic gas release before becoming incapacitated; (7) revise the TS response time from 25 seconds to 5 seconds for isolation upon a high toxic gas signal (a total of 80 seconds is allowed to isolate the control l
room when setpoint concentrations are reached at the monitor sart.ple point in the duct); and (8) revise the FSAR to add acetaldehyde as a monitored chemical.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed change to
c.
4 4
the TS involves systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the propo:eu amendment.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal Register on September 12,1988(53FR35245). No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant en.ironmental-effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
~
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduce; operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action involves no use of resources not previously considered in the
'~
FinalEnvironmentalStatement'(NUREG-1171)fortheSouthTexasProject, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
I The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendment.
L
\\
., Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude 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 application for amendment dated March 8, 1988 which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Wharton Junior College Library,'J. M. Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway,.Wharton, Texas 77488 and at the Austin Public Library, 810 Guadalupe Street, Austin, Texas 78701.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of March 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
&, 0" Jose A. Calvo, Director Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - : I.
IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 0
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _