ML20086Q581
| ML20086Q581 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1991 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086Q584 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9112300256 | |
| Download: ML20086Q581 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
s 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tHISS10N GPl' NUCLEAR CORPORATION AEE JERSEY CENTPAt POWER & 110HT COMPANY 00CKT.Y NO. 50-219 ENVIRONtEWTAL ASSES $MCNT AhD FINDINGOFNC),5j0N'.FJCyyLjMIACT The U.S. Nuclear Regult, tory Comnission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-16 issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al. (tb licensee), for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
ENVIPONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Act_ign:
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Sections 4.2.A and 4.7.C.1 to delete restriction that the refueling outage interval is not to exceco 20 months. This revision accommodates implementation of a 21-month operating cycle with a 3-month refueling outage. Specifically, it relates to the surveillance requirements for shutdown margin and measured scram time for the control rods.
The proposed amendment is in accordance with GPU Nuclear Corporation's application dated August 19, 1991 as revised August 29, 1991.
Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed change to the Facility Operating License is needed so that 4
surveillance requirements for shutdown margin and measured scram time of control rods is extended to accommodate a 21-month operating cycle rith a a
3-month outage or a 24-month plant refueling cycle.
9112300236 911217 DR ADOCK 0500 9
i
2 t'ovironrental Imp,act,$,of the Proposed Action:
f The C mission has completed its evaluation of the p 3 posed 1 vision fo Technica' Specification Section 4.? " Reactivity Control,*
The proposed rodt,1cn wouli e ommodate implementation of a 21-month operating cy 6 with a 3-morr.h outage ur a 24-month plant refueling cycle for the Oyster "i'ek s ev 11ance requii > ents for shutdown margin and measured scram tirnt 4~ control rods. The i
sur,eillance interval is presently PO months.
Based on its review, the Commission concludes thit the propo'id change is acceptable. The staff has determined that the proposed change does not alter any initial conditions assumed for the design Mri cecide t previously evaluated nor charge operation of safety systems utilized to mit is te the design basis accidents.
The proposed charge does not increase the proLability or con eq nces oi accidents. No changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant 'ncrease i'i t.ie all a ole indi-vidual or cumulative occupational radiation exposu*).
Accordiip f, the Commission concludes that proposed action would rotalt in. rt' ti)nificant radiological environmental imnact.
With regard to potential 1,nradiohgical ita?ans, the proposed change to the License involves one component in the plant which in located within the restricted area rs defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradio-logical plant effluents and has no other environmental impacts. Therefore, the Commission concludes thc.' there are no signifitant nonradiological environnental impacts associator vit.i the proposed amendment, a
'4?,:
... s 3
i Alternatives to the Preposed Action:
Since the Connission concluded that there are no significant environmental 2
effects that would result from the proposed actions, any alternatives with 1
equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
A,1,terna,tive Use of Resources:
e 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 Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The flRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
Fit:0!!!G OF NO SIGNIFICANTJPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the staff has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed amendment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for.
amendment dated August 19, 1991, as rev hed August 29, 1991, which is available j
for public inspection in the Commission's Public.Dt cument Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20555 and the local public document room located at the Ocean County Library, Reference Department; 101 l
l Washington Street, Toms River..New Jersey 08753.
' Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th-day-of December 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.Joh iF.Stolz. Director Pr ject Directorate I-4 vision of Reactor Projects - 1/l!J Office of. Nuclear Reactor Regulation =
. -, _. _ _ - _. _. _ _. - ~
~,,,._._,
,,. _.. _.. _ -. -. -,.