ML20096H662
| ML20096H662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1992 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20096H653 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9205270331 | |
| Download: ML20096H662 (3) | |
Text
_~ _
/p* nog #c UNITED STATES
!*3
([g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
/
w AswswoT ON, D. C. 20566 a
gvj e...+
SAFETY EVALVATIQ!1 BY THE OfflCE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGVL ATION ELATED TO AMENDWNT NO. 96 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPT-29 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.. ET AL GRAND GVLF NUCLEAR STATION. UNIT 1 QQfKET NO. 50-416 1.0 INTR 0QuqLQ!!
By letter.
,d February 7, 1992, the licensee (Entergy Operations, Inc.)
submitted a r' quest for changes to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS) Environmental Protection Plan (EPP).
The requested changes would terminate the Cooling Tower Drift Program of the EPP and alter references to the program to reflect the terminat* on.
2.0 EVALVATION 1he purpose of the Cooling Towar Drift Prograra is to determine if the cooling tot w d if t, resulting from operation of the facility, is elevating salt dept
.in rates in the vicinity of GGNS.
Elevated salt deposition rates could jversely affect agricultural production.
Section 4.2.2 of the EPP states t this program is to be implemented at least 3 months prior to the operatic.
Unit 1 above 5% power and will be continued for 3 years of operation, if no statistically significant amounts of analyzed components are identified during this period, the NRC would then consider terminating the The program was initiated in 1982.
program.
The licensee's February 19, 1991, submittal included an attachment that summarized the results of the drift studies conducted since 1982.
Additiona'ly, the 1989 Annual Environmental Operating Report for GGNS, which addressed the Cooling Tower Drif t Program results for 1989, was reviewed.
On June o, 1991, NRR staff visited the site to discuss the results of the study and visit the drift sampling stations.
The original study was designed to compare pre-operational to post-operational drift samples.
Six sample sites were identified from the Bechtel Salt Deposition Model, which wa, developed for GGNS during licensing of the facility.
Sampling began in 1982.
Two additional sites, located offsite, were established:
I at the time the original 6 were identified and 1 in 1985.
These two sampling locations served as control stations.
9205270331 920S18 PDR ADOCK 0"000416 P
,.E '
a ht Y *
)
. w
, son of pre-operational to post-operational data was t'.fficult bccause start-up pe*iod for GGNS (almost 3 years from t!" time the lieved initial criticality until it reached 100% vower and the i
J~
t of the cooling tower drift media in 1987. Replacemen) of tho r
t 4
a
- n,:
er drift media a!tered the amount of drift.
During 1987 and 1988, the as at full power, and the tower hao the new plastic fill me:dia.
+
M of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparison of the data ovcr i.
D tirt that the deposition re,te for most salts varied significantly by a
r;us rter, Analysis for interaction showed that there is interaction between
- g iy.
n.uwed that sample location did not have a significant influence on deposition simpie period an6 location.
Evaluations performed for influence by location
{
i Q
rates for some salts e?le other salts appear to be significantly influenced by location. Tbc thre way ANOVA was performed only on two sample locations since these were the only locations where replicate samples were collected that allowed for a comparison of interaction between period and location.
The variations Mserved over time and among the drift constituents made it difficult to directly compare pre-operational to post-operational data.
The results of the analysis were inte clusive.
The lire see alst ps "
ned a two-way ANOVA on all salts for all stations for
[
1987 r 4 1988.
Thi., analysis was perf; med to datermine if there was any statis;::a1 differente betw%n the mear. of the samples from statiens located onsite (experimen::1) and the mean of the samples from-the offsite (control) locations. The're wlts of the ANOVA tound no statistical differences (95% confiaence level)'between the mean of the data collected onnte and 1ie 3
mean of the-data collected offsite (control stations).
The staff finds tnat comparing site stations to offsite control stations is an acceptable method of e iluating the effect of GGNS on salt deposition rates in the vicinity of the station.
The ANOVA comparing '.he salt deposition data frum the site stations to that from the offsite contrul stations did not result in a statistWally significant difference between the site and offsite 6
sutions. The staff agrees with the licensee that the operation of the GGNS cooling tower does not have a statisti.11y significant effect on-the salt deposition rate for the chtnical spe..as evaluated. Therefore, the staff finds that the intent of the recuirement of Section 4.2.2 of the EPP has been met and the Coolint Tower Drift Program required by Section 4.2.2 can be terminated.
The staff'r con:lusion is supported by a recent unpublished staff revicw evaluating impacts an,ociated with license renewal.
The staff concluded that cooling tower Jrif t at nuclear plants does not appear to be a threat to
3, e
~
3 agricultural crops or lands or ather cultivated crops.
No yield reductions from cooling-tower operation have been reported for crops except in situations where crops were experime. tally placed close to cooling towers.
In addition, no state agency has reported negative impact on agriculture from cooling tower sopera t i er.3.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Mississippi State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
4.0 DLVJRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35. an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal Reaister on May 18, 1992 (E7 FR 21138).
Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission has determined that issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
e..
5.0 CONCLUSION
W q
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the publir will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) tne issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
M. Masnik Date: May 18, 1992
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - -