ML20082Q461
| ML20082Q461 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1991 |
| From: | Quay T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20082Q450 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9109120176 | |
| Download: ML20082Q461 (7) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
^
I l
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC., ET AL.
GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT_ IMPACT, The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an Order Revoking Construction Permit No. CPPR-119 which authorized construction of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2 (Grand Gulf 2),
located in Claiborne County, Mississippi.
Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy Operations) on behalf of itself and System Energy Resources, Inc., Mississippi Power & Light Company, and South Mississippi Electric Power Association are licensees under the permit.
The latest a nstruction completion date in the permit is October 1, 1984.
Construction activities at this site were discontinued on September 18, 1985.
By letter dated December 27, 1990, Entergy Operations requested that the construction permit for Grand Gulf 2 be terminated.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action is to issue an order that would terminate Construction Permit No. CPPR-119 for Grand Gulf 2.
This action was requested by Entergy Operations on behalf of itself and the other licensees because they do not plan to complete the plant.
The staff made a site visit to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 2 on June 5, 1991.
The primary object ve of the site visit was to determine whether the licensee's efforts to stabilize the site had considered all critical site areas.
Particular effort was made to inspect areas of the site which potentially could be subject to continued erosion and contribute silt to 9109120176 910821 PDR ADOCK 0500 7
~
~2-surface water bodies, as well as to identify areas where standing water could result in saturated soils.
Additionally, the staff was interested in the status of burn pits and solid waste disposal areas that utilized or received t
construction waste from Unit 2.
The entire site including the sedimentation ponds, the shoreline with the Mississippi River and the area that was used for solid waste disposal was
- examined.
Backfilling around building and component foundations belonging to Grand Gulf has_long been completed.
The potential for erosion contributing silt to site drainage. courses from the Unit 2 facilities is low.
The drainage pattern from the entire site is very well developed.
All disposal areas have i
been closed and revegetated leaving only the burn pits.
There is no evidence of erosion in this area.
The staff found that-the licensee has implemented an aggressive site-wide program to control erosion.
Based upon this review and the results of our June 5, 1991, site visit, the staff concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact result-ing from the termination of Construction Permit No. CPPR-119 for Grand Gulf 2.
l
[
The staff concludes, based on its review and inspection, that the Grand
[
1 Gulf 2 site is in an environmentally stable condition.
Need fr Proposed Action:
(
l 1
The licensees have terminated construction of the nuclear power plant.
i This action by NRC would terminate the construction permit.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actior.:
c This is a simple administrative action of terminating the outstanding
.f i-per1 nit to reflect the fact that' there are-no longer any new nuclear utilization i
I, facilities under construction at the Grand Gulf 2 site and the site has been i
I adequately stabilized.
t
. t Alternatives to the Proposed Action and Alternative __Use of Resources:
This action, for which there are no appropriate alternatives, does not involve the use of and, therefore, will not affect, available resources.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed Entergy Operations' request for termination of the construction permit and conducted the environmental review and inspection of the facility.
The staff on July 12, 1991, contacted Ms. N. Bethune, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV to discuss the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station solid waste disposal area which is a part of the Unit I site.
The EPA will visit the Facility this year to obtain samples of the disposal area for analysis.
Should any remediation be required, it would be coordinated by the EPA.
The NRC staff will continue to monitor the EPA's efforts in this The NRC did not consult any additional agencies or persons.
area.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement of this proposed action.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For further dM. ails with respect to this action, see Entergy Operations' request for termination of Construction Permit No. CPPR-119 dated December 14, 1990, the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation Report for Grand Gulf Unit 2, Termina-tion of Construction Permit dated June 27, 1991, and the NRC staff's Environmental Evaluation of the Proposed Termination of Construction Permit for Grand Gulf Unit 2 dated July 23, 1991.
These documents regarding the NRC staff's environ-mental assessment of the proposed action are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at Hinds Junior College, McLendon Library, Raymond, Mississippi 39154.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 7th day of August,1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dW 7
Theodore R. Quay, Director Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, and V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation h
~--
- *'CW
,4 c
UNITED STATES i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5-
. [
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20656 0,
3..v f
..+
NRC STAFF EVALUATION OF SITE STABILIZATION FOR GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-417 1.0. INTRODUCTION By letter of December 27, 1990, Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) requested that.the'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) terminate Construction Permit CPPR-119 for the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (Grand Gulf 2).
On September 18, 1985, the licensee had discontinued construction activities at Grand Gulf 2.
In its letter of December 27, 1990, Entergy Operations, Inc., reported that it had reviewed all open and closed licensing commitments related to Grand Gulf 2 to confirm that' cancellation of Grand Gulf 2 will in no way affect the safe operation of Grand Gulf 1 and reported that it had stabilized the Grand Gulf-2 site.
.The NRC staff has evaluated the effect that termination of the construction permit would have on the safety of Grand Gulf 1 and on the environment.
2.0 EVALUATION-
.The staff has reviewed NUREG-0831, Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2", and Supplements 1 through'7,-in the technical areas of structural engineering and the geosciences.
~
The staff finds that commitments that apply to both units were retained for Grand Gulf 1 to the extent they were still applicable.
Commitments unique to Grand Gulf 2 will not affect Grand Gulf 1 in any way after the construction permit is cancelled.
The licensee has committed to revise the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report in December 1991, to make it apply to the single unit station.
On June 5, 1991, the staff-visited the te after evaluating the licensee's Annual Environmental Operating Report for 1990, the site drainage plan,.and several of the most recent-reports entitled '? Summary of. Environmental Protec-tion' Program Respecting Construction of Grand Gulf Nuclear _ Station Unit 2."
The staff conducted the site visit-to determine if the licensee had considered all critical site areas in its efforts to stabilize the plant.
Specifically, the staff inspected areas of the site that could be subject to continued erosion and contribute silt to surface water bodies.
The staff also investigated
-areas.in which standing water could saturated the soil.
Additionally, the staff investigated the status of burn pits and solid waste disposal areas that were used or that had received construction waste from Grand Gulf 2.
.~ -.
The staff examined the entire site including the sedimentation ponds, the shoreline along the Mississippi River, and the area in which the licensee had disposed of solid waste.
The NRC staff traversed the perimeter of the site to the extent possible to identify any evidence that offsite areas were affected.
The site is typical of a large industrial facility, with limited continuing construction, in'which continuino efforts are required to maintain the site.
Years before, the licensee had completed backfilling around building and component foundations belonging to Grand Gulf.
The staff concluded that erosion would not likely contribute silt to site drainage courses from the Grand Gulf 2 facilities.
The drainage pattern from the entire site is very well developed and runof f is effectively channeled into the two sediment basins.
The staff found that the licensee has implemented an aggressive program to control erosion throughout the site.
The staff found the two sediment basins in good repair and found evidence of continued maintenance.
The licensee's clearly understood site drainage.
The staff concluded that the site drainage was adequate to maintain the current site topography.
- However, continued maintenance is required.
Climatic and soil conditions are promoting the rapid revegetation of disturbed areas, thereby minimizing erosion.
The licensee's representatives identified two eroded areas (the influent channel to sediment basin A, and the margin of a storage area) that should be corrected.
The licensee was waiting for dryer weather to make repairs.
Although the erosion in the influent area of sediment basin A was severe, the staff found that the eroded sediment was principally confined to the sediment basin and that no sediment had been deposited below the outflow of the basin.
The licensee indicated that it would repair the eroded area in the summer of 1991.
Erosion in this area could not be directly attributed to the Grand Gulf 2 con-struction activities.
The staff found less erosion along the southern margin of the storage area on the north side of the Port Gibson-Grand Gulf Access Road (north side of site) than it had found at sediment basin A.
Apparently, the licensee had begun to stabilize the erosion.
Dense vegetation downstream from the eroded area has contained most of the eroded soil.
The licensee is stabilizing this area and expects to complete this effort by August 1991.
Although the licensee had originally stored components in this area from both Grand Gulf 1 and Grand Gulf 2, the licensee was now using the area for st-ing Grand Gulf I components and dismantling the Crand Gulf 2 condensers for scrap metal.
On any major industrial site, a continuous effort is needed to maintain the site and minimize site erosion.
Additional effort is needed if the ecological balance is to be maintained.
At Grand Gulf, the licensee is performing such programs to minimize erosion by monitoring and repairing areas as needed.
While constructing both Grand Gulf I and Grand Gulf 2, construction personnel disposed of solid waste in the area east of Grand Gulf 2.
Burn pits are all that remains of this waste.
The licensee has closed and revegated all disposal areas.
The staff found no evidence of erosion in this area.
On July 12, 1991, i
J
3 the staff, contacted Ms. N. Bethune, U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV, to discuss the solid waste disposal area at Grand Gulf.
She expressed concern over the lack of detailed information on the wastes that had been disposed of in this area.
Apparently, after halting construction of Grand j
Gulf 2, the licensee disposed of significant quantities of solid waste in this area.
In 1991, the EPA will visit the facility to obtain core sariples of the j
waste disposal area.
The results of analyses of the core samplec may indicate the need for further sampling.
Since the EPA has statutory authority in this area and is exercising this authority, the staff defers to the EPA en this 1
issue.
The EPA would coordinate any remediation.
The NRC staff will continue j
to monitor Ee U s efforts in this area.
j 3.0 CONCu';
The NRC staff has reviewed the request by Entergy Operations, Inc., to terminate Construction Permit CPPR-119 for Grand Gulf 2 and determined that this action would not cause any significant effect on either the environmental or safe operation of Grand Gulf 1.
In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that revocation of the construction permit will have no significant impact on the environment.
Principal Contributors:
R. Twigg M. Hasnik Date: August 21, 1991 r
1 4
4 J
+
e