ML20058D701
| ML20058D701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1993 |
| From: | Larry Nicholson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058D702 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312030280 | |
| Download: ML20058D701 (4) | |
Text
.
7590-01 i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY j
ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-354 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License No. NPF-57, issued-to Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al.
(PSE&G or the licensee; I
for Hope Creek Generating Station, located in Salem County, New Jersey.
i ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
+
identification of the Proposed Action:
By letter dated July 7,1993 (NLR-N93095), PSE&G requested a license amendment to reflect changes to Appendix B of the facility Operating License NFP-57.
The request concerned removal of Pages 4-la and 4-lb from l
Section 4.2.1, " Aquatic Monitoring," in'the Environmental Protection Plan l
(EPP).
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, a Section 7 consultation was i
reopened to evaluate the occurrence of impinged sea turtles at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station main circulating water intake structure.
On_
January 2,1991, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a biological opinion which included an incidental take statement (ITS) that j
specified measures that PSE&G should take to facilitate observance and j
rescue of impinged sea turtles at the intake structures of both Salem and 9312030280 931119 PDR ADOCK 05000354 i
C PDR l
.m,_
.._m..._
m.-
4 f
i
. l i
Hope Creek.
PSE&G incorporated these measures into the EPP as requested by l
I the NRC staff.
Because of a large number of sea turtles impinged at the
]
Salem intake structure during the summer of 1991, a revised biological I
l opinion was issued by NMFS on August 4, 1992.
During the summer of 1992, j
~
the fatal take limit of one Kemp's ridley was exceeded at the Salem intake structure.
NMFS reinitiated the Section 7 consultation and on May 14, 1993, the biological opinion was again revised and issued. Because there i
has been no documented takes of sea turtles at the Hope Creek intake structure, the revised ITS in the May 14, 1993 biological opinion, granted l
relief to Hope Creek from the monitoring requirement contained in the l
previous biological opinions.
j The Need for the ProDosed Action:
The proposed changes to Section 4.2.1, " Aquatic Monitoring," of the l
Environmental Protection Plan is required in order to provide the licensee i
relief of the previously imposed monitoring requirements, as they are not necessary.
Environmental impacts of the ProDosed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed revision to the Environmental Protection Plan and concludes that the changes are consistent with the recommendations made by NMFS in the May 14, 1993, revised biological opinion.
The Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact because the change only affects monitoring for sea turtles.
The proposed amendment will not increase the probability or consequences of any reactor accidents because the change does r.ot affect
=
i i
/*
]
4
{.
l the operation or performance of any equipment assumed in the accident l
l analyses. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed change to the Environmental Protection Plan involves deletion of j
surveillance requirements of systems located within the restricted area, as i
defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect non-radiological plant -
j r
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission l
concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental l
i impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
a Alternative to the Proposed Action:
i Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant i
i environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any l
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be i
evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the, requested amendment.
This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant' operation f
f
]
and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources:
i This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously j
I considered in the Final Environmental Statements for the Hope Creek f
l Generating Station (NUREG-1074), dated December 1984.
i Acencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and consulted the State of New Jersey regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I
The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact r
statement for the proposed license amendment.
t
l
- l I
Based uponr the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on l
the quality of the human environment.
{
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 7, 1993. This letter is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, Lower Level, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Pennsville Public Library,190 S.
Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19thday of November 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,]4 Larry
. Nicholson, Actin'g Director Project Directorate 1-2 Division of Reactor Projects - 1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation