ML20196J225
| ML20196J225 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hope Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1988 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196J207 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803140201 | |
| Download: ML20196J225 (5) | |
Text
.
t UNITED STATES Nt' CLEAR REGULATORY COMM!SSION PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-354 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF
,a NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commissioni is considering issuance of an emendment to Facility Operating License No. NDF-57 issued to Public Service Electric & Gas Company and Atlantic City Electric Company, (the licensees), for operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station, located in Salem County, hew Jersey.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed amendment would:
(1) Increase the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) safety limit in Technical Specifications (TS) 2.1.2 and 3/4.4.1 and in the Bases sections related to these TSs.
(2) Replace the curves in Figures 3.2.1-1 and 3.2.1-2 to provide Maximum Average Planar Heat Generation limit curves for two new fuel types that will replace two existing fuel types during the next operating cycle (Cycle 2).
(3) Change TS 3/4.2.3 to provide new MCPR limits for Cycle 2 operation l providing limits for two exposure ranges rather than a single exposure range as in the existing TS. The two ranges are a) from Beginning-of-Cycle (BOC) to I End-of-Cycle (EOC) minus 2000 MWD /ST and b) from EOC minus 2000 MWD /ST to EOC. The ACTION and SURVE!LLANCE REQUIREMENTS for TS 3/4.2.3 would also be i
8803140201Bggjj54 ;
PDR ADOCK pop 4 P
{
4 l
i revised to reflect this new option of using either of the two new exposure ranges and to delete the existing option of operating at 400*F or less.
(4) Revise existing Figure 3.2.3-1, MCPR vs Tau, by providing the MCPR vs Tad curves for the first exposure range discussed above and revise existing Figure 3.2.3-2, Kf Factor by deleting the KfFactor curve and replacing it with the MCPR vs Tau curves for the second exposure range discussed above.
(5) Add a new Figure 3.2.3-3 with a new Kf Factor curve for Cycle ?
operation.
(6) Delete Table 3.2.3-1 which currently provides MCPR Feedwater Heating Capacity Adjustments for operation below 400'F.
(7) Revise the TSs to allow operation above the 100% Load Line and up to 105% Rated Core Flow bv:
a) Extending the KfFactor curve up to 110% of Rated Core Flow (instead of the current 100%).
b) Clamping the Upscale Setpoints for the Rod Block Monitor in TS '
Table 3.3.6-? at the 100% recirculation flow value. l c) Increasing the Motor Generator Set mechanical and electrical i stops in TS 4.4.1.1.3 to physically allow for increased core flow.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated December 14, 1987.
The Need for the Proposed Action: i The proposed change to the TS is required in order tn provide the licensee l with appropriate safety litiits for operation with the Cycle 2 reload core,
{
1 creater operatinnal flexibility during the initial portions of the operating l l
I
3-l cycle, improved power ascension capability to full power and additional l ability to compensate for reactivity reduction due to fuel exposure during the l
operating cycle.
Envirpnmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed revisions to the Technical Specification limits adequatelv compensate for the proposed changes in the fuel load and for operation with increased core flew and extended load line limits. The proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being l 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 Comission 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. It does not affect nnn-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are l no significant non-radiological enviro 1 mental impacts associated with the proposed amendment. '
The Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment and Opportunity for Prior Hearing in connection with this action was published in the Federal Recister on January 14, 1988 (53 FR 972). No request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following this notice.
Alternative to the Proposed Action:
Since the Comission concluded that there are no significant environmental effects that would result from the proposed action, any j alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
l l
l l
i
.a.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requasted amendment. This would not reduce environmental inoacts of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility.
Alterrnative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Hope Creek Generating Station, dated December, 1984.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the prnposed license amendment.
Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the cuality of the human environment.
For further details with respect to this actinn, see the application for amendment dated December 14, 1987 which is available for public inspection at 1
the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
and at the Pennsville Public Library,190 South Broadway, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 7th day of March 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAP REGULATORY COM4fSSION l
Walter R. Butler, Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/!!
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 2
. _ . , , - _ - - -. ~.
i k
Mr. C. A. McNeill Hope Creek Generatino Station Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
cc:
S. E. Miltenberger Mr. B. A. Preston, Manager Vice President - Nuclear Jperations Licensing and Regulation Nuclear Department Nuclear Department P.O. Box 236 P.O. Box 236 Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Gregory Minor Susan C. Remis ,
Richard Hubbard Division of Public Interest Advocacy Dale Bridenbaugh New Jersey State Department of MHB Technical Associates the Public Advocate 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Richard il. Hughes Justice Complex San Jose, California 95125 CN-850 Trenton, New Jersey 086?5 M. J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Conner & Wetterhahn Office of Legal Counsel Suite 1050 Department of Natural Resources 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue and Environmental control Washington, D.C. 20006 89 Kings Highway P.O. Box 1401 R. Frvlirg, Jr., Esquire Dover, Delaware 19903 i Law Department - Tower SE 80 Park Place Ms. Rebecca Green :
Newark, New Jersey 07101 New Jersey Bureau of Radiation Protection 380 Scotch Road Resident Inspector Trenton, New Jersey 08628 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1 P.O. Box 241 Mr. Anthony J. Pietrofitta j Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Gener-il Manager Power Prnduction Engineering ;
Richard F. Engel Atlantic Electric l Deputy Attorney General 11e9 Black Horse Pike Division of Law Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 !
Environmental Protection Section l Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Regional Administrator, Region I l CN-112P U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission i Trenton, New Jersey 08625 475 Allendale Road l King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 i Mr. S. LaBruna General Manager-Hope Creek Operations ,
Hope Creek Generating Station i P.O. Rox 118 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 l
l 1
i