ML20155F266

Notice of Availability of Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Change in Impacts Re full-term OL Review. Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20155F266
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	04/10/1986
From:	Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20155F255	List: ML20155F250 ML20155F259 ML20155F266
References
NUDOCS 8604210445
Download: ML20155F266 (23)

Text

_ . - _ _ _ _ _

7590-0!

UNITED STATES N!! CLEAR REGULATORY COWISSION GPil NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND

.1ERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-719 AVAllARILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSFSSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN TMPACTS PELATING TO THE FULL TERM OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW The Nuclear Reculatory Comission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (staff) has issued an Environmental Assessment related to tha application for Full-Term Operatina License (FTOL) filed by GPU Nuclaar Corocration on March 6,1972, for its Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station incated in Ocean County, New Jersev. ,

1 In preparation for the conversion of Provisional Operatina License (POL) No. OPP-16 for Oyster Creek to an FTOL, the NRC staff performed an assessment of the existing Final Environmental Statement (FES) datad December 1974

{ The NRC staff has evaluated the environnental effects of the continued operation of Oyster Creek station and reexamined the impacts initially presented in the FES. Rased on this evaluation, the NRC staff has determined that: (1) there are no new impacts that differ significantly from those evaluated in the FES, there are no substantial changes in the proposed actions relevant-to environmental concerns and there are no significar,t new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearina on the proposed action or its impact and, thus, issuance of a suppleme,t to the FES is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);

8604210445 B6041029 DR ADOCK 05

7590-01 erd (2) the conclusion on onge 10-10, Section 10, Benefit-Cost Analysis, of the 1974 FES, as applied to Oyster Creek station, is still valid.

FINDING OF NO SIGNTFICANT CHANGE IN IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare a supplement to the FES for_ the proposed FTOL conversion.

Based upon the environmental assessment, we conclude that the proocsed action will not have a significant effect on the cuality of the human environnent beyond that described in the 1974 FES.

For further details with respect to this action, see the Commission's Environmental Assessment dated April 10, 1986 and the 1974 FES, which are available for public inspection at the NRC Public Documer.t Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room.

Ocean County Library,101 Washinoton Street, Toms River, New Jersey 08753.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 10th day of April 1986.

FORTHENUCLEARREGULATORYC0%fSSION e

w

\. s- '

John . Zwolinski, Director BWR Pr ect Directorate #1 Divisio of BWR Licensing i

ATTACHMENT NO. 3 s

APPENDIX B

~

TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.

UNITS 1 AND 2

( .

e

~_~.

6

~

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NONRADIOLOGICAL) 9 b

e e p s

e

a. . . .. . - . ..

_ . __ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ _ . . . .4 .. _ _ . _ .. _ - . . . , - . _ _ .. ...

l b.ihrI.

b UNITS 1 AND 2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN * *

(NONRADIOLOGICAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS k.. ..

Section Pace 1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan............. 1-1 2.0 Envi ronmental P rotseti on I s s ues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.1 Aquatic Issues.............................................. 2-r.

2.2 Terrestrial Issues.......................................... 2.

3.0 Consistency Requirements.................................... 3-1

( 3 3.1 Plant Design and 0peration..................................

3.2 Reporting Related to the NPDES Permit and State Certifications............................................

3-

~

~27.

~

3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations...............................................

3-4-1 4.0 Environmental Conditions....................................

- -.- 4.1 Unusual or Irportant Environmental Events................... 4-4.2 Environmental Monitoring.................................... 4-5.'0 Admi ni strati ve Procedu res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1 .

5.1 Rev i ew a nd Aud 1 t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /

5-7 5-5.2 ' Records Retention........................................,.s. .

5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection P1an.................... 5-5.4 Plant Reporting Requirements................................ 5-(

k. ..

- - , . . - . . . . . , - . . . . , , .-..._,y .. . _ , , . , . . _ . ,, . _ . _ . _.,-..-,,.,n.,- ,,,, , - - ,,,. - . _ , -,__n.- - _ _ . . , - - . . _ . - . . . , , , - - , - -

~ ~

1.0 Objectives of the Environmental ~ Protection Plan DWT

(. .

The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is to provide for protection of nonradiological environmental values during operation of the nuclear , ,

facility. The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows: - -

~

(1) Verify that the facility is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by.the Final Environmental Statement - Operating Licensing Stage (FES-OL) and.other NRC environmental , impact assessments.

(2) Cecrdinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal State and local requirements for environmental protection.

. ~

(3) Keep NRC inforced of the environmental effects of facility construction and operation and of actions taken to control those effects. ,

' ~

~~i- Environmentakconcerns identified in the FES-OL which relate to water quality

.. matters are regulated by way of the licensee's NPDES permit.

O e

.- y 4

. 1-1 a . .

, .- --- ., ..- - - . - . . - - - - . _ - , . - - _ - . . - . . - - - . .- ~ . - - . . - . - - . , . - . . - . . . . .

. l

~ I 2.0 Environmental Protection Issues -

}

)

the staff considered the environmenta}

~

. In the FES iOL' dated . .

r P.ower l impactsasyociatedwiththeoperationofthitwounit , .

Plant. Certain environmental issues were identified which required study '

l I

or license conditions to resolve envirormental concerns and to assure l

' adequate protection of the environment. .

2.1 Aquatic Issue.:

2.2 Terrestrial Issues ,

{s O em e

e. 6

- e 0 0

• a 9A

$ m o

~

3.0 Consistency Requirements . I L 3.1 Plant Design and Operation

• l The itcensee may make changes in station design or operation or perform j tests or experiments affecting the environment provided such activities l

. l do not involve an unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a l

' change in the EPP*. Changes in station design or operation or performance

.. , of tests or experiments which do not affect the environment are not subject to.the requirements of this EPP.' Activities governed by Section 3.3 are I not subject to the requirements of this Section. 1 Before engaging in additional coustruction or operational activities which r

may significantly affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity. Activities are

( excluded from this requirement if all measurable nonradiological environ-i mental effects are confined to the on-site areas previously disturbed -

during site preparation ar.d plant construction. When the evaluation

~'

_ indicates that such activity involves an unreviewed envirorunental question.

the licensee shall provide a written evaluation of such activity and obtain  ;

j prior NRC approval. When such activity involves a change in the EPP, such activity and change to the EPP may be implemented only in accordance with an l 1

l appropriate license amendment as set forth in Section 5.3 of this EPP. 1 I

l

. . l l

• TMs provision does not relieve the licenses of the requirements of l 10 CFR 50.5g. . .- . <

'. l

\

l 3-1

^

f- .

gg A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an b unreviewed environinental question if it concerns: (1)amatterwhichmay -

result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental imp'act previously evaluated in the FES-OL, enviroa-ental impact appraispls.' or in

~

anydecisionsoftheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard;or(2)asignificant change in effluents or power level; or (3) a matter, not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.

~. .

The licensee shall maintain records of changes in facility design or operation and of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to this Sub-section. These records shall include written evaluations which provide bases for the determination that the change, test, or experiment does not

" involve an unreviewed environmental question or constitute'a~ decrease in the effectiveness of this EPP to meet the objectives specified in Section 1.0.

. .The licensee shall include as part of the Annual Environmental Operating .

Report (per Subsection 5.4.1) brief descriptions, analyses interpretations.

~'

and evaluatings of such changes, tests and experiments.

~

3.2 Reporting Related to the NPDES Permit and State Certification Changes to, or renewals of, the NPDES Permits or the State certification shall be reported to the NRC within 30 days following the date the change or renewal is appioved. If a permit or certification. in part'of in its entirety, is appealed and stayed, the NRC shall be notified within 30 days following the date the stay is granted. ,

l

( '

I

. 3-2

._,,~..,__..--..__-.m..,,, , _ , , , , , , _ , . , , . , - . . _ , . . _ . . _ . , _ , _ - . . _ _._ ,,,,__,-,,,m,._,, . ,__-.

. udfI The licensee shall motify the NRC of changes to the effective NPDES Pemit ,

z .

proposed by the licensee by providing NRC with a copy of the proposed change-at the sarne time it is submitted to the permitting agency. The licensee shall provide the NRC a copy of the applica ion for renewal of the NPDES Pemit at the same time the application is submitted to the permitting ,

agency.

! . 3.3 Changes Require'd for. Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations

~

Changes in plant design or operation and performance of tests or experiments which are required to achieve compliance with other Federal, State, and local environmental regulations are not subject to the requirements of Section 3.1..

(

l m

O

\

e l

l 3-3

a. . .

4 ,

4.0 Environmental Conditions .

b 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events ,

Any occurrence,of, an unusual or important event that indicates o,r co'u1d ,

result in significant environmental impact causally related to plant, 1

operation shall be recorded and reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> .

followed by a written report per Subsection 5.4.2. The following are

examples: excessive bird impaction events, onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks, mortality or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the , ,

Endangerr.d Species Act of Ig73, fish kills, increase in nuisance organisms ..

L

' or conditions, and unanticipated or emergency discharge of waste water or I-chemical substances.

r

).

No routine monitoring programs are required to implement thii* condition. g.

~

( ,

> , 4.2 Environmental Monitoring .

4.2.1 Aquatic Monitoring .

.. g .

- (1) The certifications and permits required under the Clean Water Act pro-

~

vide mechanisms for protecting water quality and. indirectly, aquatic biota. The NRC will rely on the decisions made by the U.S. Envirofeental i

h-- under the authority of the Clean Prr'tetton Agency and the State Water Act for any requirements for aquatic monitoring.

4.2.2 - Terrestrial Monitoring ,,

l e

+-l 8 h,,,

,n~.,-, ,--.,-,n.- --,,-w-n-_,g_,-.,, ,,, , ,,--, -,--+--.--,,.,--,w., m---+--

. , - . ,.-,,.-.-----...-,.-,,--.c ,.w,

~ n h

~

-. 5.0 Administrative Procedures

(. '

. 5.1 Review and Audit Thelicenseeshallprovideforreviewandadditofcompliancewi,ththjEPP.

The audits shall be conducted independently of the individual or' groups responsible for performing the specific activity. A description of the

~

' organization structure utilized to achieve the independent review and audit ,

i function and results of the audit activities shall be maintained and made

~

available for inspection. ' - -

5.2 Records Retention r

Records and logs relative to the environmental aspects of station operation ,

shall be made and retained in a manner convenient for review and inspection.

(

These records and logs shall be made available to NRC on request.

Records of modifications to station structures, systems and components

! 'N~ determined to potentially affect the continued protection of the environ-sent shall be retained for the life of the station. All other records, data and logs relating to this EPP shall be retained for five years or, where applicable, in accordance with the requirements of other eger.cies.

• ?,

5-1

- - . . , , -..,,-.,.n,_.., , . - , _ _ , . , . . , , , _ , , _ _ , _ _,,,.,,_-,_,_,,__,,_,n ,,yn.. . . , , _ _ . . _ , . , _ , , , ,.-,_,,m,-

a ,.

~

.. 5.3 Changes in c.nvironmental Protection Plan

(

Requests for changes in the EPP shall include an assessment of the*

environmentalimpactoftheproposedchangeandasupportingjustification. ,

Implementation of such changes in the EPP shall not connence prior to NRC approval of the proposed changes in the form of a license amendment ,

incorporating the appropriate revision to the EPP. ,

3.4 Plant Reporting Requiriments 5.4.1 Routine Reports An Annual Environmental Operating Report describing implementation of this r

EPP for the previous year shall be submitted to the NRC prior to May 1 of

'each year. The initial report shall be submitted prior to'Hiy 1 of the

(

year following issuance of the operating license.

l l

The report shall include suur. aries and analyses of the results of the I

~

- environmentaQrotection activities required by Subsection 4.2 of this EPP

.- for the report period, including a comparison with related preoperational studies,operationalcontrols(asappropriate),andpreviousnonradiological environmental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed 1eracts of the plant operation on the environment. If harmful effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible damage to the environment are observed, the licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the data and a p'rohsed course of m'itigating action. .

~

. 6-2 l

.. 1

O P-The Annual Environmental Operating Report'shall also inc1ude:

(1) A list of EPP noncompliances and the corrective actions taken to remedy them. -' ,

1

[

d (2) A list of all changes in station design or operation, tests, and f experiments made in accordance with Subsection 3.1 which involved a potentially significant.bnreviewed environmental'geestion.

(3) A list of nonroutine reports submitted in accordance with Subsection 5.4.2.

l r In the event that some results are not available by the report due date, the report shall be submitted noting and explaining the missing results. The

( missing results shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary recort. .

' 5.4.2 Nonroutine Reports A written report shall be submitted to the NRC within 30 days of occurrence of a nonroutine event. Thereportshall(a) describe, analyze,andevaluate the event including extent and magnitude of the impact, and plant operating characteristics.(b)describetheprobablecauseoftheevent.(c) indicate the action taken to correct the reported event. (d) indicate the ' corrective

( '

5-3 h

^...

- . . , , _ , , _ . . , _ . - . _ _ . , _ _ _ , . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ _ . _ , . _ , , _ . . . . . . , . - . . ..._.__,__,_,._,__.,_.._..,___._,-_,--_.._,..,,___v___,, -.

. r. --

' I. ,

action taken to preclude repetition of thi event and to prevent similar b occurrences involving similar components or systems, and (e) indicate the -

agencies notified and their preliminary responses.

• Events reportable under this subsection which also require reports to other '

Federal, State or local agencies shall be reported in accordance with those reporting requirements in lieu of the requirements of this subsection. The NRC shall be provided with a copy of such report at the same time it is submitted to the other agency. -

f

( . .

a_.,

g .

l l

l l

e, e

=  :" *,

e

~

. 6-4 n ...

co , ; - -

-7

[

I, 7 $ [~ -

j%< > x -

. 'O ,

+ , a p.

-e --

.g ,

, Company and General Public Utilities (GPU) Nuclear Corporation (the K-

. licensee) for operation of OCNGS at power levels up to 1930 megawatts

\. .

the (Mwt). .

The original authorized licensee has evolved where now GPU f Nuclear' Corporation.is the entity responsible for the operation of OCNGS. '

Since the\.(icense was granted, OCNGS has operated 'at or near for outages \and derated plant operation because of plant operating conditions.

L Pursuant to Section of revised Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50 (currently 10 CFR Part 51), the licensee submitted to the Director of Regulation en--

" .J. -,, lg an envi'ronmental. report. The revised regulation further ^

required that the Director of. Regulation, or his, designee, analyse this pg reportandprepareadetailhdstatementofenvironmentalconsiderations. It

\

[. is within this framework that'an FES related to the operation ~of OCNGS was

- \

r issued by the-staff in December 1974. The proposed action addressed in the

~

~

FES was the conversion of the POL No_. DPR-16 to a Full Term Operating

\_ .

. License (FTOL). The AEC issued a notice of its intent to issue a FTOL in the' '

i . \ i C /' FEDERAL REGISTER on November 28, 1972 (3 FR 25190). The FES for OCNGS was; ,

kN..-

issued in support of this action; however, the license conversion process-was delayed due to the inception of the staf s Systematic Evaluation '

Program (SEP). The SEP is a program to revieA the designs of older

\

operating nuclear plants such as 0CNGS to document their sefety against newer licensing criteria.

f 9- =

+y ~,ya - - , ,,~,-wr-p-.m- -

n ,w n n e. 4 < mw ,-- . w ,. y.anw,,,,.ww,,we, _ _eng ., g. ,-m g wm e .a_, y.,wn,, my -,,ww e--ngwn , y ,wn wy ,

e

• w

~L .

,$s00lb d *MfDW K

702,1978) that the NRC does. t' Sn- th oulburiiy 3 Mc'd any non-radiological license conditions for the protection of the aquatic environ-ment because the Clean Water Act places full responsibility for such matters with the USEPA (or those states to which authority has been delegated).

Effluent limitations and water quality monitoring at power plants are imposed by USEPA via the National Pollution Discharae Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued for each facility. Amendment 66 to POL No. OPR-16 for OCNGS became effective on March 24, 1983, and deleted from the Appendix B Environmental Technical Specifications nonradiological requirements related to the following: limiting conditions for operation (LCOs); thermal olume analysis; hydrographic analysis; and ecological studies. The USEPA issued NPDES Permit No. NJ0005550 for OCNGS on January 31, 1975. The permit expired on January 30, 1980, but remains in effect during the renewal process by the State of New Jersey, which has been delegated permitting authority by the USEPA. A new draft permit has been prepared by the State for OCNGS (Ref. 43). Following the public review, the State will finalize the Permit and formally reissue it for a 5-year period.

a.1 Intake Effects The 1974'FES for OCNGS assessed the effects of water withdrawal on the ,

f aquatic resources of Oyster Creek, Forked River, and Barnegat Bay. Those effects were related to flow charges in the Creek and River, and to impingement and entrainment of Rarnegat Bay biota.

, N. . ~

r ,1 ,

(,; -

p -

+ .

~, -

, :of reduced effluent temperature and wood removal (during 1976), enhanced 9

~

by a winter station outage that killed the less tolerant non-native shipworm species. In this regard, an out' age that resulted in a kill of greater than 7000 fishes (see Section 3.2.2 above), helped to reduce the local impact of shipworm infestation. The NRC sponsored study found that while OCNGS certainly contributed adult and larval shipworms to Barnegat Bay, no dramatic buildup of shipworms in the bay occurred (except in areas influenced by station thermal effluents). Such a buildup is unlikely in the future, given the present thermal regime and the f.equency of station outages (Ref. 35).

The natural introduction of non-native shipworms into the area during the early 1970s (coupled with their enhancement by OCNGS operation), suggests that re-introduction at a future date is possible. The mitigative measures taken by the licensee decreased the suitability of the area as a shipworm habitat, however, the area still is habitable. The NRC sponsored study (Ref. 35) found that as long as there is any unprotected wood in the area influenced by station discharges, a breeding population of borers will be maintained under present OCNGS operating conditions. The study concluded that the best course of action is for the licensee to continue to assist local affected property owners in replacing wooden structures with properly treated woody This should extendint&-the-affected-areas-of-Forked-River.

-Such an effeet with10t only aid-affected peoplerbut-also-will-serve-to-reduce-the-inhabitable substrata-for-borersr -thus-decreasing-the /

nn+-^t?M-for-futUfelroblems.

& V]fMi5 NNGk iw/

md5 Q n w /wj?p f 4

> NmvTivdw,ML pn rm iop?nd pa ,ej FE4 ha.4y4scoar m and 'm7

'). icy (6),

NESm >wwndahn CSwan and On 7(p)en] SeeNrn d 2 5,/)N Wurnsdud.

1 ,

4.4 Canal Bank Stabilization Erosion of the banks by runoff has been a problem sinre the canal was

, built. The canal banks were originally dredged with a design slope of 11 to 1 vertical to horizontal. As reported in the 1974 FES the licensee had begun stabilizing the eroding banks and were to be required to completely stabilize the canal banks.

In 1975 the bank stabilization program was completed. This program included lining the intake and discharge canal banks west of U.S. Route 9 and portions of the canal banks east of U.S. Route 9 with riprap, placinq smaller stones above the riprap and spraying the stone with AC-20 oil to increase stabilization (Ref. 23). On a May 16, 1984 visit, the NRC staff noted that the canal banks are now well stabilized.

4.5 Areas Denuded For Plant Construction Erosion occurring on exposed areas continues to result in the addition of silt to surface waters. During the construction of OCNGS a number of areas were stripped of vegetation for laydown or other construction activities.

Much of the disturbed area has not been replanted. In addition the dredge spoil resulting from the construction of the intake and discharge canals was deposited at various locations on and off site (Fig.4-1). n..q 30; W M5 kreas of the intake canalhu,N, e.., m- dredgdandthespoil [

deposited on the southeastern portion of the site. (N ss%t +u & ms W Cwg$1Lk Gl5 )

-9 .

..+,

'hy 32 -

One of the provisions stated in the 1974 FES was that the applicant "will take action to revegetate the areas denuded by plant construction." Recause

.the licensee has not revegetated the site, this provision is still a propriate.

i T ere are 11 areas that have not been revegetated (Ref. 24). Of these 11

\

areas, # e.c >Jeduled Tui .u.cyc;.oi..or, ^'ir l/::r, 6 - - to b; r:vaa^tated Shfe ; r ;7 ,;;;t, ;7,j

^

arcas are Sc M -tG bc c% Clet0d #h '^^'

._ - i. The 4

spoil, dredged in 1984 and 1985, will be revegetated after completion of dredging in 1985, according to the dredging permit with the County Soil Conservation District.

In addition a second nuclear generating 3tation was to be constructed on this site (Forked River) and 80 acres were cleared for its construction.

These 80 acres are presently unvegetated used for laydownpor are occupied by temporary or permanent buildings. k Q

$k UN<uut.

The State of New Jersey regulates all types of construction. These regulations are administered through County Soil Conservation Districts.

Under these regulations, the utility needs permits to install erosion control facilities and to deposit dredge spoil. In order to get the permits the utility must submit plans for approval for each area to the Ocean County Soil Conversation District (the County in which CCNGS r

L L

y ---- im- m

'hp.

- wr /

[ es . ..-

,_ ) Md Q $$7's 7LA,i W ,C (dO.d i) ((k J

d 4

OM A dvedy'qe)g duL 4- \ b '0 C sea y,

u 3 3-a g i Pf .-- 7q f g yy,g g.s., y q, r

~O

][x \

~- > -

)

.v .

M i ) k D sD / fd S.

Ib '

, h _ i 6 t) (

L ,e a j t

" H.. \J.

g;-

.,- 3 V%

3 [i; he .

U '41. Letter dated February 7,1984, from:~ Charles J. Kulp, U.S. Fish and ,"

.6 ', Wildlife Service to: = D. M. Crutchfield, USN?.C. .

42. - Jenkins, C. David, Jr. ,1984. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection,' letter to Clarence Hickey, USNRC, February 14. '

43.: FES'1979. Terrestrial Environmental Program' Forked River Nuclear Station '

Annual Report. March 1978 - February 1979. Terrestrial Environmental

-Specialist, Inc., Phoenix, NY.

tr 44.: Telephone conversation between C. Hickey, USNRC, and E. Marra, New Jersey. Division of Environmental. Protection, on June 29, 1984.

45. Oak-Ridge National Laboratory Technical Evaluation Report to USNRC under contract W-705-eng-26, ORNL/NSIC-173, Review of the Operatina Experience History of Oyster Creek Through 1981 for the NRC's Systematic Evaluation Program, July 1983.

46. ' Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Environment Report, Oyster Crcek Nuclear Generating Station, 1972.

'~47.. Integrated Plant Safety Assessment Report for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Statica, NUREG-0822, Docket No. 50-219, dated January 1983.

48. Letter dated October 22, 1984, from: P. B. Fiedler, GPU Nuclear, to:-

Mr. Walter A. Paulson, USNRC.

Principal Contributors: L. Bell, D. Cleary, E. Fields, C. Hickey, G. LaRoche, M. Wohl and J. Donohew.

Dated:

l LC 1 a

~

ga M COM9M6tev de

) Y [

• ) AMC,m 3,

m. -_m___________.

c 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 0YSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219 1, AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICAN AT A-ll RELATING TO THE FULL-TERM OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (staff) has issued an Environmental Assessment related to the application for Full-Term Operating License (FTOL) filed by GPU Nuclear Corporation on March 6,1972, for its Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station located in Ocean County, New Jersey.

In preparation for the conversion of Provisional Operating License (POL) No. DPR-16 for Oyster Creek to an FTOL, the NRC staff performed an assessment of the existing Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated December 1974.

The NRC staff has evaluated the environmental effects of the continued operation of Oyster Creek station and reexamined the impacts initially '

presented in the FES. Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff has determined that: (1) there are no new inpacts that differ significantly from those evaluated in the FES, there are no substantial changes in the proposed actions relevant to environmental concerns and there are no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on I

the proposed action or its impact and, thus, issuance of a supplement to the FES is not required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); l j

. , ,, 1 o -

l t

7590-01

, 4 1

' and (2)~the conclusion on page 10-10, Section 10, Benefit-Cost Analysis,.

of the 1974 FES, as applied to Oyster Creek station, is still valid.

- OH66 /M FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT A e

. The Commission has determined not to prepare a supplement to the FES for the proposed FTOL conversion.

Based upon the envirw.imental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment beyond that described in the 1974 FEL.

For further details with respect to this action, see the Commission's Environmental Assessment dated March , 1986 and the 1974 FES, which are available at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room, Ocean County Library,101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey 08753.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this day of FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION John A. Zwolinski, Director BWD ' 9,iect Directorate #1 P on of BWR Licensino i

. . _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ -