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

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