[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8739-8741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-416]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-29, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), located in
Claiborne County, Mississippi.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will replace the existing Technical
Specifications (TSs) in their entirety with the Improved Technical
Specifications (ITSs).
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment
request dated October 15, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated April
15, and November 10, 1994.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all plants would
benefit from improvement and standardization of the TSs. The ``NRC
Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for
Nuclear Power Reactors,'' (Federal Register 52 FR 3788, February 6,
1987) and later the Final Policy Statement, formalized this need.
[[Page 8740]] To facilitate the development of individual ITSs, each
reactor vendor owners group (OG) and the NRC staff developed Standard
TSs. For General Electric (GE) plants, the Standard TSs (STS) are
NUREG-1433 for BWR/4 reactor facilities and NUREG-1434 for BWR/6
facilities. NUREG-1434 formed the basis of the GGNS ITSs.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed revision to the TSs is based on NUREG-1434 and on
guidance provided in the Policy Statement. Its objective is to
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the existing TSs. Emphasis
is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and
understanding. The Bases section has been significantly expanded to
clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each
specification. In addition to NUREG-1434, portions of the existing TSs
were also used as the basis for the ITSs. Plant-specific issues (unique
design features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed
at length with the licensee, and generic matters with the GE and other
OGs.
The proposed changes from the existing TSs can be grouped into four
general categories, as follows:
1. Non-technical (administrative) changes, which were intended to
make the ITSs easier to use for plant operations personnel. They are
purely editorial in nature or involve the movement or reformat of
requirements without affecting technical content. Every section of the
GGNS TSs has undergone these types of changes. In order to ensure
consistency, the NRC staff and the licensee have used NUREG-1434 as
guidance to reformat and make other administrative changes.
2. Relocation of requirements, which includes items that were in
the existing GGNS TSs but did not meet the criteria set forth in the
Policy Statement for inclusion in the TSs. In general, the proposed
relocation of items in the GGNS TSs to the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report (UFSAR), appropriate plant-specific programs procedures
and ITS Bases follows the guidance of the BWR/6 STS, NUREG-1434. Once
these items have been relocated by removing them from the TSs to other
licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise them under the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC staff-approved control
mechanisms which provide appropriate procedural means to control
changes.
3. More restrictive requirements, which consist of proposed GGNS
ITS items that are either more conservative than corresponding
requirements in the existing GGNS TSs, or are additional restrictions
which are not in the existing GGNS TSs but are contained in NUREG-1434.
Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a Limiting
Condition of Operation (LCO) on plant equipment, which is not required
by the present TSs to be operable; more restrictive requirements to
restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive surveillance
requirements.
4. Less restrictive requirements, which are relaxations of
corresponding requirements in the existing GGNS TSs which provided
little or no safety benefit and placed unnecessary burden on the
licensee. These relaxations were the result of generic NRC action or
other analyses. They have been justified on a case-by-case basis for
GGNS as described in the safety evaluation to be issued with the
license amendment, which will be noticed in the Federal Register.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
revision to the TSs. Changes which are administrative in nature have
been found to have no effect on technical content of the TSs, and are
acceptable. The increased clarity and understanding these changes bring
to the TSs are expected to improve the operator's control of the plant
in normal and accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements to other licensee-controlled documents
does not change the requirements themselves. Future changes to these
requirements may be made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 or other
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which assures continued maintenance of
adequate requirements. All such relocations have been found to be in
conformance with the guidelines of NUREG-1434 and the Policy Statement,
and, therefore, to be acceptable.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
be acceptable.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit or to place unnecessary burden on the licensee, their
removal from the TSs was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic NRC action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the OG and found to be acceptable for GGNS. Generic
relaxations contained in NUREG-1434 have also been reviewed by the NRC
staff and have been found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revision to the TSs was found to provide
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
These TS changes will not increase the probability or consequences
of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluent
that may be released offsite, and there is not significant increase in
the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed TS
amendment.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted
areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological
impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendment, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed amendment, the staff
considered denial of the amendment. Denial of the amendment would
result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental
impacts of the proposed amendment and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously
considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Grand Gulf
Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the
Mississippi State official regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a signficant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to [[Page 8741]] prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed amendment.
For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 15, 1993, as supplemented by letters
dated April 15, and November 10, 1994, which are available for public
inspection at the Commissin's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Judge George W. Armstrong Library, 220 S.
Commerce Street, Natchez, Mississippi 39120.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of February 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James R. Hall,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-I, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-3772 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
