ML20056A181
| ML20056A181 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1990 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056A182 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008060057 | |
| Download: ML20056A181 (4) | |
Text
- -
l 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOil i
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ANp JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-219 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Provisional Operatinn License No.
DPR-16 issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation, et. al. (the licensee), for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to accommodate implementation of a 21-month operating cycle with a 3-month outage or a 24-month plant refueling cycle for those TS surveillances which will expire prior to the currently scheduled 13R refueling outage.
The proposed amendment is in accordance with GPU Nuclehr Corporation's application dated May 4, 1990.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are needed so that surveillance requirements for certain systems and equipment be extended to accommodate a 21-month operating cycle with a 3-month outage or a 24-month plant refueling cycle, i
9008060057 900731 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of each of the proposed revisions to the Technical Specifications.
The proposed revisions would accommodate implementation of a 21-month operating cycle with a 3-month outage or a 24-month plant refueling cycle for those technical surveillances which will expire prior to the current scheduled 13R refueling outage.
Oyster Creek is presently on a 20-month refueling cycle.
Based on its review, the Commission concludes that each of the proposed Technical Specification changes are acceptable.
Therefore, 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 evaluated, (2) do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and (3) do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposr,s.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that these proposed actions would resuli in no significant radiological environmental impact.
i
I 3
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications involve several components in the plant which are locateu within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impacts.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 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 June 5, 1990 (55 FR 22977).
No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental l
effects that would result from the proposed actions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
Alternative Use of Resources:
The action would involve no use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station dated December 1974.
Agancies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other.
agencies or persons.
s a
FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The staff has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that he 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 May 4, 1990, which is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington. 0.C., 20555 and the Ocean County Library, Reference Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of July, 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
l
'Jo n F. Stolz, Director Pr ject Directorate I-4 vision of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-