[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22415-22416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11137]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit No. 3 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License 
No. NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee) 
for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 
located in New London County, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements 
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.1.(a), to the extent 
that a partial exemption and a schedular exemption from the 
requirements of Section III.D.1.(a) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J would 
be granted. This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address 
potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of 
September 28, 1994, as supplemented on February 24, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to permit the licensee to perform the 
third Type A test for the first 10-year Appendix J service period 
during the sixth refueling outage, instead of the fifth refueling 
outage. The exemption would permit a more flexible schedule for 
containment leakage testing and resulting in a significant cost savings 
to the licensee. The fifth refueling outage began in April 1995, and 
the sixth refueling outage will be in 1997. Therefore, the exemption 
would (1) permit the third and last Type A tests of the 10-year 
inservice inspection period to not correspond with the end of the 
current American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code (ASME Code) inservice inspection interval, and (2) to 
extend the 10 year Appendix J Type A test interval to refueling outage 
6, currently scheduled for April 1997, which would be an extension of 
12 months.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed partial exemption and schedular 
exemption would not increase the probability or consequences of 
accidents previously analyzed and the proposed partial and schedular 
exemptions would not affect facility radiation levels or facility 
radiological effluents. The licensee states that the existing Type B 
and C testing programs are not being modified by this request and will 
continue to effectively detect containment leakage caused by the 
degradation of active containment isolation components as well as 
containment penetrations. It has been the consistent and uniform 
experience at the facility during the two Type A tests conducted on 
July 5, 1989 and October 12, 1993, that any significant containment 
leakage paths are detected by the Type B and C testing. The Type A test 
results have only been confirmatory of the results of the Type B and C 
test results. Therefore, application of the regulation in this 
particular circumstance would not serve, nor is it necessary to 
achieve, the underlying purpose of the rule. The licensee has stated to 
the NRC Project Manager that the general containment inspection will be 
performed during refueling outage 5 although it is only required by 
Appendix J (Section V.A) to be performed 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 proposed change will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types 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 measurable 
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 staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. 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 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on March 24, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Connecticut State official, Mr. Kevin McCarthy, 
Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action. [[Page 22416]] 
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated September 28, 1994, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 24, 1995, which are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room 
located at the Learning Resource Center, Three Rivers Community-
Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New London Turnpike, 
Norwich, CT 06360.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,
Director, Project Director I-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-11137 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M