ML20043A518
| ML20043A518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1990 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A519 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005220187 | |
| Download: ML20043A518 (4) | |
Text
&.
i
~
7590-01 i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GPUNUCLEAR,CpgpRADgN AND t
.lERSEYCENTRALPOWER,)yG_HTCOMPANY E
DOCKET NO. 50-219 ENVIRONf:El:TAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corsnission (NRC or the Commission) is con-
.sidering. issuance of an amer.dir,ent to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-16 issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation, et. al. (the licensee), for operation of the Cyster' Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
l ENVIR0 tit 1E!!TAL ASSESSMENT Identifi a,t,ipn pf,,Prpposed Action:
A The proposed amendrr.ent would revise Technical Specifications 3.17 and 4.17.
Specifically, the changes are as follows:
(1) two control room heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems shall be operable during all modes of operation, (2) addition of new limiting conditions for operation for, the Control Room, and (3) delete surveillance to determine the makeup air plus infiltration air (less than or equal to 2000 cfm) to the control room HVAC system.
g The proposed aniendnent is in accordance with GPU Nuclear Corporation's application dated October;18,1989, as supplemented February 21, 1990.
The Need_fp,r,,the,Prppp,se,d, Ac,tipn:
The proposeo changes to the Technical Specifications are needed as a I
result of the 12 R outage final system upgrades for Control Room Habitability.
l The Control Rocm now has two inoependent IIVAC systems. Presently, the Tech-nical Specifications recognize only a single system.
l e+.
9005220187 900516
~
PDR ADOCK 05000219 p
'y
~
r Environmental Impacts ~of the Proposed Action The Commission has completed its evaluttitt of the proposed revisions to Technical Specifications. The proposed revision to upgrade control room-habitability by installing two independent HVAC systems provides remedial
.ieasures to address a potential single failure of an active component in either i
system.
Based on the above, the staff has determined that the proposed Technical Specifications do-not alter any initial conditions assumed for the design basis accidents previously evaluated nor do they change operation of safety systems utilized to mitigate.them. Therefore, the proposed changes (1) do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evt
, (2) do not create-the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and (3) do L
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase-the probability or con-sequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents taat may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the a'lowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Ac-cordingly, the Commission concludes that these proposed actions would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications involve the Control Room HVAC system located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect non-radiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impacts.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for
~ Hearing in connection with this action was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on
' November 22,1989(54FR48339). No request for hearing or petition for leave-i
.to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternatives to the P poposed Action J
Since the Comission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed actions,-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 be compatible with the installed Control Room HVAC system which consists of.two independent HVAC systems.
Alternative Use of, Re,spurce,s:
The action would involve no use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environtertal Statement (FES) for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Agencies and Persons Cp,ns,u,1,te5:
Tte NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other
-agencies or persons.
FINDING N0 SIG!!IFICANT IMPACT The staff has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessrent, we conclude that the proposed actions will.not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
For'further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated October 18, 1989, as supplemented February 21, 1990, which is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Puilding, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Ocean
g '
- *%.-.4.
County Library, Reference Department,101 Washington Street, Toms River, New t
' Jersey 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this May 16, 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-j Jo F. Ste d, Direqt Pr ject Directorate I-4 vision of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation s
I
?'
- - - - - - - - - - ^ ^ - - - - - ^ ^ ^ ^ - - - ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~