[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46319-46321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-22041]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 46320]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-302]
Florida Power Co.; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its
regulations to Facility Operating License No. DPR-72, issued to Florida
Power Corporation, (the licensee), for operation of the Crystal River
Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CR3), located in Citrus County,
Florida.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of Proposed Action
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated May 19, 1995, as supplemented August 8, 1995, for
exemption from certain requirements of Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations, part 50 (10 CFR part 50), Appendix J, ``Primary Reactor
Containment Leakage Testing for Water Cooled Power Reactors,''
Paragraph III.D.1.(a), relating to Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT)
frequency. The proposed exemption would allow CR3 a one-time interval
extension for the Type A test (containment integrated leak rate test)
by approximately 24 months from the spring 1996 refueling outage to the
spring 1998 refueling outage.
The Need for the Proposed Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria
for Nuclear Power Plants,'' criterion 16, ``Containment design,'' the
``[r]eactor containment and associated systems shall be provided to
establish an essentially leak-tight barrier against the uncontrolled
release of radioactivity to the environment and to assure that the
containment design conditions important to safety are not exceeded for
as long as postulated accident conditions require.'' 10 CFR 50.54,
``Conditions of License,'' paragraph O, states that ``[p]rimary reactor
containments for water cooled power reactors shall be subject to the
requirements set forth in Appendix J to this part.'' 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix J, requires periodic verification by tests of the leak-tight
integrity of the primary reactor containment and establishes the
acceptance criteria for such tests. The purposes of the tests are to
assure that periodic surveillance of reactor containment penetrations
is performed so that proper maintenance and repairs are made during the
service life of the containment and leakage through the primary reactor
containment shall not exceed allowable leakage rate values as specified
in the technical specifications or associated bases. Paragraph III.D.1
specifies that a set of three Type A tests is to be performed at
approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service period. Such
tests are to be limited to periods when the plant is non-operational
and secured in the shutdown condition under the administrative controls
and in accordance with the safety procedures defined in the license.
For CR3, the next available opportunity for performing the ILRT
would be in Spring 1996. The licensee requested a one-time interval
extension for the ILRT by approximately 24 months from the Spring 1996
refueling outage to the Spring 1998 refueling outage. The licensee
indicated that approval of its request would save over two million
dollars and would reduce personnel radiation exposure. The proposed
action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the ILRT.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that the proposed one-time exemption would not increase
the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed and
the proposed one-time exemption would not affect facility radiation
levels or facility radiological effluents.
In support of its exemption request, the licensee submitted
information pertaining to Types A, B and C testing history, structural
capability, and risk assessment.
Two ILRTs have been performed during the last seven years with
successful results. There have been no permanent or temporary
modifications to the containment structure, liner or penetrations since
the last Type A test, and no future modifications are planned prior to
the 1998 refueling outage which could adversely affect the Type A test
results.
The licensee will continue to be required to conduct the Type B and
C local leak rate tests which are, in general, the principal means of
detecting containment leakage paths with the Type A tests confirming
the Type B and C test results. Types B and C testing history at CR3
shows that the overall combined as-found leakage has been less than the
allowed combined leakage rate of 0.6 La (266,431 SCCM) at the
calculated maximum peak containment pressure as specified in Appendix
J. The NRC staff considers that these inspections provide the necessary
level of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment
boundary. It is also noted that the licensee, as a condition of the
proposed exemption, will perform the visual containment inspection
although it is required by Appendix J to be performed only in
conjunction with Type A tests. The NRC staff considers that these
inspections, though limited in scope, provide an important added level
of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types or amounts of any
effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application
would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action did not involve the use of any resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statements related to operation
of Crystal River Unit 3, dated May 1973.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 28, 1995, the NRC
staff consulted with the State of Florida official, Dr. Lyle Jerretti,
Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental
impact statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the foregoing
environmental
[[Page 46321]]
assessment, the Commission 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 request
for exemption dated May 19, 1995, as supplemented August 8, 1995, which
are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and at the local public
document room located at Coastal Region Library, 8619 W. Crystal
Street, Crystal River, Florida 32629.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 28th day of August 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
David B. Matthews,
Director, Project Directorate II-1, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-22041 Filed 9-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
