ML20246F712
| ML20246F712 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1989 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246F715 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907130376 | |
| Download: ML20246F712 (4) | |
Text
_ -
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-354 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 issued to Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the ifcensee) for operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station, located in Salem County, New Jersey.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Hope Creek Generating Station to (1) separate the Reactor Building Filtration, Recirculation, and Ventilation System (FRVS) into two separate sections, one affecting the FRVS Recirculation Subsystem (FRVS-RS) and the other affecting the FRYS Ventilation Subsystem (FRVS-VS), (2) extend the life of the FRYS-RS adsorber charcoal, (3) eliminate unnecessary surveillance tests of the FRVS, and (4) provide minor clarifications for the FRYS and Control Room Emergency Filtration System (CREFS).
The proposed action is in accordance with the licenste's application for amendment dated November 25, 1987 as supplemented by a letter dated April 17, 1989.
j The Need for the Proposed Action:
i The proposed change to the Technical Specifications is required to (1) clarify the surveillance requirements for both FRYS and CREFS, (2) relax presently overly conservative surveillance comitments which will, in turn, P
1
- l signif Lantly extend the service life of the FRYS Recirculation and Filtration subsystem charcoal without affecting the systems' capabilities or effectiveness as stated in the FSAR, and (3) permit maintenance activities in the reactor building or control room areas without dogmatically requiring a lengthy surveillance test of the FRYS or CREFS without regard for the actual impact of those maintenance activities on ventilation system efficiency.
Enviro mental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The Connission has completed its evaluation of the propcsed revision to the Technical Specifications. The proposed revision would revise the Technical Specifications Section 3/4.6.5.3 by creating separate Sections 3/4.6.5.3.1,and 3/4.6.5.3.2; rewording certain surveillance requirements and adding a footnote to those Sections; and, for Section 3/4.7.2, rewording surveillance requirement 4.7.2.c and adding a footnote to that Section. The separation of the Filtration, Recirculation, and Ventilation System into two subsystems with identical limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements provides the intended clarification and does not remove or relax the current requirements.
The requested change of the acceptance criterion to 7.5% methyl iodine penetration for tests of the FRYS-RS charcoal while the acceptance criterion for the test of the FRVS-VS charcoal remains at 1.0% penetration corresponds to a combined iodide penetration for the two beds in series of less than 0.075%, which is within the Regulatory Guide 1.52 criterion. The requested change would require subsystem flow rate, in-place penetration, or carbon adsorbent laboratory tests only upon determination that the High Efficiency Particulate Activity (HEPA) filters or carbon adsorbent could have been damaged by structural maintenance or adversely affected by chemicals, fumes or foreign materials. The amendment l
e i
f would further clarify that this determination shall consider the maintenance performed and/or the type, quantity, length of contact time, known effects and previous accumulation history for all contaminants which could reduce the system performance to less than that verified by the acceptance criteria of the tests.
The proposed amendment described above does not change operation of the facility and the change in the surveillance acceptance criterion is consistent with the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.52. Therefore, the proposed changes do not increase the probability or 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 in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no significant radiological environmental impact.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed change to the TS involves systems located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impccts associated with the proposed amendment.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
4
4 j The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously 1
considered in the Environmental Report-Operating License Stage for the Hope Creek Generating Station, dated August,1983.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff consulted with the State of New Jersey. The comments received from the Bureau of Nuclear Engineering of the State of New Jersey will be addressed in the Safety Evaluation issued with the amendment.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental ' impact statement for the proposed license amendment.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effact on the quality of the human environment.
For further detati with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated November 25, 1987 and a supplement dated April 17, 1989 which are available for pubite inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555 and at the Pennsville Public Library,190 S. Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of July 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Walter Butler, Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -.