ML20236B212
| ML20236B212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Grand Gulf  |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1989 |
| From: | Lo R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | System Energy Resources |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B215 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903200436 | |
| Download: ML20236B212 (4) | |
Text
..
4..
m.
- 4 * ' - _
9 7590-1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY co m ISSION SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES. INC. 6t al.
DOCKET NO. 50-416
_ GRAND GULF NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cosnission '(the Connission) is considering issuance of an amendment'.to Facility Operating License No. NPF-29, issued to l
SystemsEnergyResources,Inc.,et.ak(thelicensee),foroperationofthe i
. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1, located in Claiborne County, Mississippi.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendment would revise the provisions in the Technical 1
Specifications (TS) relating to changes of the reactor protection system (RPS) instrumentation surveillance test intervals and allowed outage times.
d Specifically, two changes would be made to TS 3/4.3.1," Reactor Protection System Instrumentation."
(1) The allowed outage times for actions in the event of inoperable-instrumentation channels would be increased.
The time to place.the inoperable channels in a tripped condition would be increased from i
one hour to twelve hours. The time to restore operability of the channels which cannot be tripped without causing the trip function to occur would be increased from two hours to six hours. The length of
-l time a channel may be placed in an inoperable status for required surveillance would be increased from two hours to six hours.
gggs2ggy$ $N)g" P
(2) Surveillance intervals would be increased from monthly to quarterly except for the manual scram instrumentation for which' the surveillance interval would be decreased from monthly to l
weekly.
l The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's appifcation for i
amendment dated' June 30, 1988.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed change to the TS is needed to improve plant safety and 3
i availability. These improvements would be achieved by reducing the potential j
for unnecessary plant scrams, excessive equipment test cycles and the diversion of plant perser.nel and resources to unnecessary testing.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The Connission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the TS and concludes that the proposed TS would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any accident.
This is because a reduction in the probability of core damage due to the reduction in challenges to the safety l
systems by inadvertent scrams during surveillance tests more than offset the increase in the probability of core damage due to longer surveillance test intervals. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts and no significant changes in the types of effluents that may be released offsite and that there should be no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Comission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
\\
+
1 4
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed change to the TS involves requirements with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
Alternative to the Pr_oposed Action:
Since the Comission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. This '
would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the " Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2", dated September 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Conrassion has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statementfe.rtiieproposedlicenseamendment.
- 7
. s; w :
i Based upon the foregoing environmental. assessment, we conclude that the i
proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
4 For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the application for' amendment dated June 30, 1988, which is available for public tinspectica at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. and at the Hinds Junior College, McLendon Library, Raymond,
-Mississippi 39164.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
i S
Ronnie H. Lo, Acting Director Project Directorate II-1 Division of. Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- See previous concurrence OFC *:LA:PD21:DRPR:PM:PD21:DRPR:0GC
- D:PD21:D PR :
p J
NAME :PAnderson
- LKintner:j fw:RBachman*
- EReevest DATE 22/16/89
- 3/ /89
- 2/17/89
- 3/10/89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
_