Jump to main content.

Nebraska Public Power District; Cooper Nuclear Station;

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 

Nebraska Public Power District; Cooper Nuclear Station; 



[Federal Register: July 14, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 135)]
[Notices]               

[Page 36312-36313]

>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]









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 (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to the Nebraska Public Power District (the 
licensee) for the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS), located in Nemaha 
County, Nebraska.



Environmental Assessment



Identification of the Proposed Action



    The proposed action would grant an exemption from the requirements 
of Section III.D.2(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, to allow Type B 
testing (local leak rate testing) of the drywell head and manport 
primary containment penetrations to be deferred from the current due 
date of July 17, 1995, until the next refueling outage, which is 
scheduled to commence on October 13, 1995.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's request 
for exemption dated December 27, 1994.



The Need for the Proposed Action



    The proposed action is needed to avoid a plant shutdown solely for 
the performance of two Type B tests of the subject penetrations. Plant 
shutdown is undesirable because it subjects the reactor and its 
supporting systems to transients which increase the potential for 
malfunctions that may challenge safety systems. Additionally, every 
shutdown and restart results in radiation exposure for plant workers a 
they perform shutdown and restart related tasks in radiation areas in 
various parts of the plant.

    There is no overriding technical need for the Type B tests. The 
tests are intended to detect local leaks and to measure leakage across 
each pressure-containing or leakage-limiting boundary for certain 
reactor containment penetrations, thereby providing assurance that 
maximum allowable containment leakage rates are not exceeded. Section 
III.D.2(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that Type B leak 
rate tests, except for airlocks, be performed during reactor shutdown 
for refueling, or at other convenient intervals, but in no case at 
intervals greater than two years. The requested exemption for an 
extension of the 2-year surveillance interval would allow these 
penetrations to be tested at the next refueling outage, scheduled to 
commence on October 13, 1995. The current 2-year interval ends on July 
17, 1995, when the plan this expected to be at power. The current 
operating cycle for CNS commenced on August 1, 1993, and has included 
an extended, unplanned outage of nearly nine months (May 25, 1994, 
through February 21, 1995). This factor, along with the anticipated 
load demand and fuel capacity, has resulted in the rescheduling of the 
next refueling outage to October 1995.

    In its December 27, 1994, exemption request, the licensee cited 
several factors to demonstrate that a high level of confidence exists 
that the subject penetrations will still be capable of performing their 
intended function if the required testing is deferred for a short time. 
The drywell head and manport penetrations have never failed a Type B 
local leak rate test in the more than 20 years the plant has been 
operating; therefore, the potential for any significant degradation of 
the penetrations during the few months that the tests would be deferred 
is extremely low. Although the drywell head seal is made from a 
silicone rubber compound and environmental conditions such as heat and 
radiation have been shown to case degradation in silicone compounds, 
the current operating cycle will consist of a maximum of 18 months of 
power operation. Typically, the seal is expected to function for a much 
longer period, as Appendix J allows up to 2 years of power operation 
between tests. Finally, gross failure of the penetrations is highly 
unlikely, as the drywell head and manport penetrations 



[[Page 36313]]

are not active components, and therefore, are not subject to active 
failure criteria.



Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action



    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed exemption is appropriate. The exemption 
would allow a one-time schedular exemption from Appendix J to 10 CFR 
Part 50 to allow the Type B testing of two primary containment 
penetrations to be deferred until the next refueling outage, resulting 
in approximately three additional months of plant operation beyond the 
date that those penetrations are currently required to be tested.
    The 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 
areas 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 that 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 requested exemption. 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 
Cooper Nuclear Station, dated February 1973.



Agencies and Persons Consulted



    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 5, 1995, the staff 
consulted with the Nebraska State official, Ms. Julia Schmidt, Division 
of Radiological Health, Nebraska Department of Health, 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.

    For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's 
request for exemption dated December 27, 1994, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the Commission's 
Local Public Document Room at the Auburn Public Library, 118 15th 
Street, Auburn, Nebraska 68305.



    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July 1995.



    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall, Sr.,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-17296 Filed 7-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.