ML20138E433
| ML20138E433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1997 |
| From: | Eaton R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138E439 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705020196 | |
| Download: ML20138E433 (3) | |
Text
. _. _ _ _._.
0 7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION. ET AL.
DOCKET NO. 50-219 QySTER CREFK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-16, issued to i
GPU Nuclear Corporation, et al. (the licensee), for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would revise the technical specifications (TSs) to reflect implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20 which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23391), and implemented at Oyster Creek on January 1, 1994.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated November 12, 1996, as supplemented November 27, 1996.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is needed in order to retain operational flexibility consistent with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, concurrent with the implementation of the revised 10 CFR Part 20.
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that implementation of the proposed action, in regards to the actual release rates as referenced in the TSs as a dose rate to the maximally exposed 4
member of the public, will not increase the types or amounts of effluents that O k 05 DR 19 P
. - ~. -. -... -... -. -
i may be released offsite. The change will not increase the probability or l
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 i
in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
l Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant i
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.-
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined i
in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has l
no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Procosed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action.
Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action
]
are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Oyster Creek Nuclear j
Generating Station.
Aaencies and Persons Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 15, 1997, the staff consulted with the New Jersey State official, Richard Pinney of the State of
. New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
1 For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated November 12, 1996, as supplemented by letter dated November 27, 1996, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Ocean County Lib *rary, Reference Department, 101 Washington, Street, Toms River, NJ 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of May 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nef/A
^
R nald B. Eaton, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
<