ML20127C193
| ML20127C193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 01/11/1993 |
| From: | Black S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127C170 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9301140038 | |
| Download: ML20127C193 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _
i I
i 7590-01 ;
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULALQRY COMMISSION TU ELECTRIC UTil.ITIES COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-446 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION. UNIT N0. 2 GylRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT :
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an exemption from a portion of the requirements of Appendix J of 10 CFR Part 50 to TU Electric (the applicant). The exemption would apply to the facility operating license for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT jdentification of proposed Actio?
The proposed action would i 1ov an exemption from the requirements of 1
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section Ill.D.2(b)(ii) for operation of Comanche Peak, Unit 2 in response to the applicant's request dated January 20, 1986.
The Need for the Proposed ilction Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J states that " Air locks opened during periods when containment integrity is not required by the plant's Technical Specifications shall be tested at the end of such periods at not less than P, " In its request, the applicant requested that the Comanche Peak Unit 2 Technical Specifications be written to instead require an overall air lock leakage test at P, to be performed only upon completion of' maintenance which has been performed on the air lock that could affect the air lock sealing capability. Otherwise, if an air lock is opened during periods when containment integrity is not required and no such maintenance has been performed, a door seal leak rate test (a less time-consuming test) must be -
9301140030 930111 PDR h ADOCK 05000446 PDR - _
l performed. This requested exemption is consistent with the st aff's position on the acceptable testing frequency necessary to demonstrate air lock sealing ,
capability intended in Appendix J. The staff's current position is shown in the Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG-0452, Revision 4), Until Commission rulemaking changes the current requirement in Appendix J, an exemption to the present regulation must -
be granted before the applicant can adopt the requested Technical Specification. The proposed exemption is needed because, based on experience at various plants, the staff found that literal compliance with Section
!!!.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J is not necessary to assure containment leaktightness. The requested exemption is consistent with the staff's technical position and has been granted to many plants, including Comanche Peak Unit 1. Literal compliance with the regulation would lead to increased costs and occupational exposure.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed exemption to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section Ill.D.2(b)(ii) will assure air lock sealing capability and containment integrity; therefore, this exemption will not increase the probability of accidents and post-accident radiological releases, nor otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with this proposed exemption.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed exemption involves systems located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The proposed exemption does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. The Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
A1.ternative to the Proposed Action The principal alternative would be for the Commission to deny the requested exemption. This would result in increased Losts and occupational exposure and would not reduce the environmental impacts of plant operation.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, dated September 1981 and Supplement dated October 1989.
A_gencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff reviewed the applicant's request and did not consult other agencies cr persons.
FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff 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 applicant's letter dated January 20, 1986. The-letter is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building -2120 L ,treet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the University of Texas at Arlington
i e
Library, Government Publications / Maps, 701 South Cooper, P. O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this lith day of January 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
Suzanne T. Black, Director Project Directorate IV-2 .
Olvision of Reactor Projects III/IV/V - --
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I
l f
i F
,--.-,.,-en.--,wu ~ --
ema-- , e - s -ry -- , - . -
wr. m o n g , , ,vm,.rw,y