ML20205Q652
| ML20205Q652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1987 |
| From: | Thadani A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17219A480 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704060011 | |
| Download: ML20205Q652 (3) | |
Text
..
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-335 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDI41G OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT t
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission (the Connission) is censidering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to the Florida Power & Light Company (the licensee), for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.1, located at the licensee's site in St. Lucie County, Florida.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action: The requested exemption is related to Section III of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.Section III contains containment leakage testing requirements. Specifically, the licensee has requested an exemption from paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) which states " air locks opened during periods when containment integrity is not required by the plant's Technical Specification shall be tested at the end of such periods at not less than Pa."
The proposed exemption is responsive to the licensee's letter dated October 10, 1986, as supplemented by letter dated January 9, 1987, requesting the exerption.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The existing air lock doors are so designed that a full pressure test at the calculated peak containment internal pressure (Pa) of an entire air lock can only be performed after strongbacks (structural bracing)havebeeninstalledontheinnerdoor. Strongbacks are needed since the pressure exerted on the inner door during the test is in a direction opposite to that of the accident pressure direction. The strongbacks are extremely difficult to install and the outer door must be opened to remove the h
?
P.
r l strongbacks. As a result, approximately 14 hours1.62037e-4 days <br />0.00389 hours <br />2.314815e-5 weeks <br />5.327e-6 months <br /> are required to complete a full pressure test of an air lock. Therefore, the licensee proposes an alternative test to be conducted during those periods when containment vessel integrity is not required by the Plant Technical Specifications and prior to j
entering Mode 4.
The alternative test consists of testing the seals of the inner and outer doors by pressurizing the area between the seals and verifying an acceptable leakage rate.
If, however, maintenance has been performed on the air lock since the last successful test performed pursuant to paragraph i
III.D.2(b)(1), an overall air lock test will be perfonned. The licensee contends that this proposal will provide adequate assurance of air lock integrity without imposing undue delays on returri to power operation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: Our evaluation of the proposed exemption from Appendix J 'to 10 CFR Part 50 indicates that the granting
'e of the exemption will not impact containment integrity for the following
)
reasons. Iftheperiodic6-monthtestofparagraphIII.D.2(b)(1)of Appendix J and the test required by paragraph III.D.2(b)(iii) of Appendix J are current, there should be no reason to expect an air lock to leak excessively just because it has been opened during cold shutdown or refueling.
Therefore, post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined nor does the proposed exemption otherwise affect radiological plant effluents and there is no significant increase in occupational exposures. Therefore, the Consnission concludes that there is no significant radiological environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed i
exemptions involves features located entirely within the restricted area i
i l
~.
, 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 is no significant non-radiological environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption.
Alternative Use of Resources: This action involves no use'of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement (for the construction permit and operating license) for the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No.1.
Agencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has de'termined not to prepare'an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
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 letter requesting the exemption dated October 10, 1986, and the supplemental letter dated January 9,1987, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Indian River Junior College Library, 3209 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 1987.
FOR THE UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h~
cP Ashok. Thadani, Director PWR P oject Directorate #8 Division of PWR Licensing-B
_ _ _,