ML20065G665
| ML20065G665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinton  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1990 |
| From: | Hannon J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20065G673 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9010220251 | |
| Download: ML20065G665 (4) | |
Text
-
7590-01 q
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
ILLINOIS POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-461 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
i The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission-(the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to the Illinois Power Company (IP)'and Soyland i
PowerCooperative,Inc.(thelicensees),foroperationofClintonPower Station, Unit 1,. located in DeWitt County, Illinois.
i
.)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action l
The licensees have requested a license amendment that would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to delete Section 3/4.3.8, " Turbine Overspeed Protection System."
This revision to the Clinton Power Station TS would be made in response to the licensees' application for amendment dated October 30
-l 1987.
- l l
1 The Need for the Proposed Action
'l IP, et al., have proposed an amendment to Facil'ity Operating License' No.NPF-62whichconsistsofchangesto\\theTS. Section 3/4.3.8 addresses l
the operability and surveillance requirements for.the turbine overspeed protection. system.
The CPS Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) provides i
an analysis.of the probability of turbine missile damage to safety-related-l components. The analysis considered turbine placement and orientation and l
the potential generation of low-trajectory and high-trajectory miss,iles.
.i j
9010220251 901012
.1 PDR ADOCK 05000461 j
p PDC
j l
0.
)
i The probability of turbine missile damage was based on the probabilities of missile generation, of a missile striking a barrier, and of a missile l
penetrating a barrier. The CPS USAR also provides a discussion of the
{
r inservice inspection program for the turbine-generator, including the licensee commitment to an inspection program on the steam valves in' accord-l ance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Based on the low probability of a turbine generated missile damaging safety-related equipment and other existing procedural requirements for inspection and test of the turbine j
steam valves, the licensee proposes to delete Section 3/4.3.8 entirely.
1 Environmental Impacts of the proposed Action i
The proposed change removes the turbine overspeed protection system' requirements from the plant TS but no changes to plant design are proposed.
The licensee will continue to perform inspection and testing on the turbine j
overspeed protection system based on vendor recommendations..
The Commission has concluded that these changes do not significantly-increase the probability or consequences of any accident and that potential' t
radiological releases during normal operations or transients:would not be increased. With regard to nonradiological impacts, the proposed amendment-i involves systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
- j part 20. They do not affect nonradiological plant-effluents and'have no other environmental impact. Therefore, the staff also concludes that there i
are no significan't nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
1 Accordingly, the Commission findings in the " Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1" I
,~
- -~
.nu
.s,
I l
1 i
dated May 1982 regarding radiological environmental impacts from the plant during normal operation or after accident conditions, are not adversely altered by this action.
IP is committed to operate Clinton, Unit 1, in l
accordance with standards and regulations to maintain occupational exposure j
i levels "es low as reasonably achievable."
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal
{
Register on February 18,1988(53FR4918). No request for hearing or f
petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice, j
Alternative to the Proposed Action The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment, f
I This alternative, in effect, would be the same as a'"no action" alternative.
Since the Commission has concluded that there are no significant environmental l
effects that would result from the proposed action,'any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be' evaluated, i
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously f
considered in the Final Environmental Statements for the Clinton Station,-
t Unit 1, dated May 1982.
Agencies and Persons Consulted t
i The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request of October 30, 1987 and did i
not consult other agencies.or persons.
+
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, i
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed license amendment, i
i
)
i
i
. i 4
i i
i Based upon this environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the l
human environment.
i For further details with respect to this action, see the request for amendment dated October 30, 1987 and the Final Environmental Statement for the Clinton Power Station dated May'1982, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. and at the Vespasian Warner Public Library,120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois: 61727.
t Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
g
$'t.
~X John N. Hannon, Director i
Project Directorate 111-3 Division of' Reactor Projects - 111, i
IV, V and Special Projects l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
[
t
)
I 9
.i
?
6-J.~
., f