[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