ML20247K353
| ML20247K353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/24/1989 |
| From: | Hickman D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247K358 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907310519 | |
| Download: ML20247K353 (4) | |
Text
__-_-
7590-01 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g)THERNCALIFORNIAEDISONCOMPANY,ETAL.
DOCKET NOS. 50-361 AND 50-362 SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT l
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-(the Commission) is considering.
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses No. NPF-10 and No.
NPF-15 issued to Southern California Edison Company, San Dieco Gas and Electric Company, the City of Riverside, California and the City of Anaheim, California (the licensees), for operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego County, California.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendments would revise certain technical specifications j
to increase the interval for the 18-month surveillance tests to at least once per refueling interval, whir.h is defined as 24 months, in support of the nominal 24-month fuel cycle. Proposed change PCN-252 would revise Technical Specification 3/4.8.1.1, "AC Sources." Proposed change PCN-256
)
would revise Technical Spectiications 3/4.3.1, " Reactor Prote".ive Instru-mentation," and 3/4.3.2, " Engineered S.afety Features Actuation System Instrumentation." Proposed change PCN-281 would revise Technical Specifi-j cation 3/4.3.3.3, " Seismic Instrumentation."
1 J
$$f3hS3$$ $$0$hy P
l J
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed amendments are required to prevent. unnecessary plant shutdowns to perform surveillance tests which cannot be performed during plant operation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
For each of the proposed amendments, the licensees provided analyses to demonstrate the reliability of the systems. The staff reviewed the licensees' analyses.and agrees that there would be little or no chance of failure during an additional testing interval of 1.5 months beyond the masimub interval of 22.5 months currently allowed by the Technical Specifi-cations. Therefore, the staff has approved the proposed 24 month surveillance interyc1 for these proposed changes but has not allowed a 25% extension of the interval as is normally permitted by Specification 4.0.2.
As a result, the proposed action would not involve a significant change 1
in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated, nor i
I does it involve a new or different kind of accident. Consequently, any.
radiological releases resulting from an accident would not be significantly greater than previously determined. The proposed amendments do not otherwise affect routine radiological plant effluents. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments. The Commission also concludes that the proposed action will not result in a significant increase in individual
]
or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
With regard to nonradiological impacts, the proposed amendments do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental
C
)
)
impact. Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments.
The Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing in connection with this action were published in the Federal Register on February 21,1989 (54 FR 7493) for PCN-252, on February 24, 1989 (54 FR' 8033) for PCN-281, and on February 24,1989(54FR8035)forPCN-256.
No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternatives to the Proposed A'ction:
Because the Comission has concluded that there are no significant environmental-impacts associated with the proposed action, there is no need to examine alternatives to the proposed action.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the Final Environmental Statement related to operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, dated April 1981 and its Errata dated June 1981.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees' request that supports the proposed amendments. The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendments.
l Based upon the foregoing environmental 6ssessment, the Comission con-cludes that the propcsed action will not have a significant effect on the qual 1ty of the human environment.
I l
-4 l
for further details with respect to this action, see the applications for amendments dated October 24, 1988, November 7,1988, and January 16, 1989, which are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the General Library, University of California, P.O. Bcx 19557, Irvine, California 92713.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of July 1989.
I FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
t(L f
%wW Donald E. Hickman, Project Manager Project Directorate V Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
l
_ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. -