[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 17, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61074-61075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-17245]
[[Page 61074]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-298]
Nebraska Public Power District; Cooper Nuclear Station;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), paragraph 50.54(o), and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
J, for Facility Operating License No. DPR-46, issued to Nebraska Public
Power District (NPPD or the licensee) for operation of the Cooper
Nuclear Station (CNS), located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. Therefore,
as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would exempt NPPD from requirements to include
main steam isolation valve (MSIV) leakage in (a) the overall integrated
leakage rate test measurement required by section III.A of Appendix J,
Option B, and (b) the sum of local leak rate test measurements required
by section III.B of Appendix J, Option B.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application, dated March 15, 2006, for exemption from certain
requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(o) as defined in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
J.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Paragraph 50.54(o) of 10 CFR part 50 requires that primary reactor
containments for water cooled power reactors be subject to the
requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50. Appendix J specifies the
leakage test requirements, schedules, and acceptance criteria for tests
of the leak tight integrity of the primary reactor containment, and of
systems and components which penetrate the containment. Option B,
section III.A requires that the overall integrated leak rate not exceed
the allowable leakage (La) with margin, as specified in the Technical
Specifications (TSs). The overall integrated leak rate, as specified in
the 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J definitions, includes the contribution
from MSIV leakage. By letter dated March 15, 2006, the licensee has
requested an exemption from Option B, section III.A, requirements to
permit exclusion of MSIV leakage from the overall integrated leak rate
test measurement. Option B, section III.B of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
J, requires that the sum of the leakage rates of Type B and Type C
local leak rate tests be less than the performance criterion (La) with
margin, as specified in the TSs. The licensee's letter also requests an
exemption from this requirement, to permit exclusion of the MSIV
contribution to the sum of the Type B and Type C tests.
The above-cited requirements of Appendix J require that MSIV
leakage measurements be grouped with the leakage measurements of other
containment penetrations when containment leakage tests are performed.
These requirements are inconsistent with the design of the CNS and the
analytical models used to calculate the radiological consequences of
design-basis accidents. At CNS, and similar facilities, the leakage
from primary containment penetrations, under accident conditions, is
collected and treated by the secondary containment system, or would
bypass the secondary containment. However, the leakage from the MSIVs
is collected and treated via an Alternative Leakage Treatment (ALT)
path having different mitigation characteristics. In performing
accident analyses, it is appropriate to group various leakage effluents
according to the treatment they receive before being released to the
environment (i.e., bypass leakage is grouped, leakage into secondary
containment is grouped, and ALT leakage is grouped), with specific
limits for each group defined in the TSs. The proposed exemption would
permit ALT path leakage to be independently grouped with its unique
leakage limits.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that the environmental impacts would not be significant. The
proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site. 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 impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historical sites. It
does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the 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 different resources
than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement
dated February 1973 for CNS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on September 26, 2006, the
NRC staff consulted with the Nebraska State official, Ms. Julia Schmitt
the Nebraska Department of Public Service, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments on
the environmental impact of the proposed exemption.
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 this action, see the licensee's
letter dated March 15, 2006. Documents may be examined, and/or copied
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publically available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff
by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of October 2006.
[[Page 61075]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian Benney,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-17245 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P