[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 15, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70072-70073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32491]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287]


Duke Energy Corporation; Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 
3 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section 
III.D.2(b)(ii) for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and 
DPR-55, issued to the Duke Energy Corporation (the licensee), for 
operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, located in 
Oconee County, South Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    Whenever the plant is in cold shutdown (Mode 5) or refueling (Mode 
6), containment integrity is not required. However, if an airlock is 
opened when in Modes 5 or 6 (which is usually the case), 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(ii) requires that an overall air lock 
leakage test be performed before plant heatup and startup (i.e., before 
Mode 4 is entered). The proposed exemption would allow this test 
requirement to be met by performing an air lock door seal leakage test 
per 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.(b)(iii) during plant startup 
prior to entering Mode 4. The licensee would apply this exemption only 
if no maintenance has been performed on the air lock that could affect 
its sealing capability. If maintenance has been performed that could 
affect its sealing capability, an overall air lock leakage test per 10 
CFR 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(ii) would be performed prior to 
establishing containment integrity.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for an exemption dated October 5, 1999.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The existing air lock doors are designed so that the air lock 
pressure test can only be performed after a strong back (structural 
bracing) has been installed on the inner door because the pressure used 
to perform the test is opposite that of accident pressure and would 
tend to unseat the door. Performing the full air lock test in 
accordance with the present requirements takes approximately 12 hours, 
since it requires installation of the strong back, performing the test, 
and removing the strong back. During the test, access through the air 
lock is prohibited, which, therefore, requires evacuation of personnel 
from the containment or the personnel must remain inside the 
containment during the test until Mode 4 is reached. The licensee has 
determined that pressurizing the volume between the seals to 60 pounds 
per square inch gauge pressure prior to establishing containment 
integrity provides the necessary surveillance to ensure the sealing 
capability of the door seals.
    Since plant personnel usually need to enter the containment while 
in Mode 5, the full pressure air lock test must be performed almost 
every time before entering Mode 4 from Mode 5. Exemption from the full 
pressure leakage test would reduce the number of tests performed and 
the time required to perform the tests, which would provide greater 
plant flexability over the lifetime of the plant.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption would permit the substitution of an air lock 
seal leakage test (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(iii)) 
for the full pressure air lock test otherwise required by 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(ii) when the air lock is opened 
while the reactor is in the cold shutdown or refueling modes. If

[[Page 70073]]

the tests required by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(i) 
and (iii) are current, and there has been no maintenance performed on 
the air lock, then adequate assurance of leak tight integrity of the 
air lock continues to exist. Consequently, this exemption will not 
affect containment integrity and does not affect the risk of facility 
accidents.
    Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
exemption, the proposed action will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is 
no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts, 
the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not 
affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental 
impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on November 30, 1999, the 
staff consulted with the South Carolina State official, Mr. Virgil 
Autry, of the Division of Radiological Waste Management, Bureau of Land 
and Waste Management, Department of Health and Environmental Control, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated October 5, 1999, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publically available 
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of December 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard L. Emch, Jr.,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-32491 Filed 12-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P