ML20066C858
| ML20066C858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1991 |
| From: | Stloz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066C860 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101110262 | |
| Download: ML20066C858 (4) | |
Text
_..
1, l
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION A,,,N,2 JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 4
00CKET NO 50-219,'
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC or the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to provisional Operating License No.
OPR-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 amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) to accomodate implementation of a 21-month operating cycle with a 3-month outage or a 24-month plant refueling cycle for Technical Specification surveillances for certain systems and equipment.
Since the individual surveillances are i
affected by the proposed change to the refueling outage definition, Technical Specification Definition 1.12, Refueling Outage is revised to specify that refueling outage tests or surveillances shall be perfonned at least _once per 1
24 months.
The proposed amendment is in accordance with GPU Nuclear Corporation's application dated March 2,1990 as supplemented November 29, and December 21, 1990.
9101110262 910104 PDR ADOCK 05000219 C
- q.
y;
.t.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are needed so that l
surveillance requirements for certain systems and equipment be extended to accomodate a 21-month operating cycle with a 3-month outage or a 24. month f
plant refueling cycle.
[
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
i The Comission has completed its evaluation of each of the proposed r
revisions to the Technical Specifications.
The proposed revisions would i
i accomodate implementation of a 21. month operating cycle with a 3-month outage l
or a 24-month plant refueling cycle for Technical Spec 1fication surveillances l
for certain systems and equipment.
Since the individual surveillances are l
affected by the proposed change to the refueling outage definition, Technical l
Specification Definition 1.12, Refueling Outage is revised to specify that refueling outage tests or surveillance shall be performed at least once per f
24 months. Oyster Creek is presently on a 20-month refueling cycle.
Based on its review, the Comission concludes that each of the proposed f
Technical Specification changes are acceptable and, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are I
being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and l
there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative
?
occupational radiation exposure, j
Accordingly, the Comission concludes that these proposed actions would l
result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed changes _to the Technical Specifications involve several components in the plant which are
-~
f 4
i 1
3 4
k s
)
located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
They do not affect nonradiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impacts.
1 Therefore, the Comission concludes that there are no significant nonradio.
logical environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment, j
Alternatives to the proposed Action:
Since the Comission concluded that there are no significant environmental I
4 effects that would result from the proposed actions, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
Alternative Use of Resources:
I The action would involve no use of resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) for the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating l
Station dated December 1974 Agencies and Persons Consvited:
4 The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other i
agencies or persons.
t FINDING NO SIGNIFICANT' IMPACT The staff has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement i
for the proposed amendment.
i Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment.- 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 March 2,1990, as supplemented November 29, and December 21, 19,90, which is available for public-inspection in the Commission's Public r
i l
P P
0
--m-
..-r-,,,,y.
- - - - -y
,, -.---,--yy--
%,,,-,y,-,,y.
....,-m-c.,,-.-.p...,_-------
,.,,.r,,
,.,..m.
-,,,..w-
,e,>-._,-,-
4 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 4th day of January 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULAT RY Com!SSION r
Joh T. Stolz, irector
' Pro ect Directorate I-4' ision of Reactor Projects - I/I!
ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
_______...__..._._.__m___._J