ML20247L166

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 111 to License NPF-57

ML20247L166
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	05/08/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20247L150	List: ML20247L166
References
NUDOCS 9805220327
Download: ML20247L166 (3)

Text

!

-.y 1

p UNITED STATES

{

g j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{

%...../e WASHINGTON, D.C. 200eH001 l

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

)

RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO111TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-57 l

PUBLIC SERVICE FI FCTRIC & GAS COMPANY I

ATLANTIC CITY Ft FCTRIC COMPANY HOPE CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-354 1

i i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated December 19,1997, as supplemented March 6,1998, the Public Service Electric

& Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS), Environmental Protection Plan Technical Specifications (EPPTSs). The requested changes would change the wording of Section 4.2.2, " Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring,"

of the EPPTSs to include completion of the Salt Drift Monitoring Program. The March 6,1996, submittal provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice.

2.0 EVALUATION l

The licensee has proposed changes to Section 4.2.2 of the EPPTSs that reflect the completion j

of the Salt Drift Monitoring Program. The current Environmental Protection Plan Section 4.2.2 reads as follows:

l "The applicant will implement the Salt Drift Monitoring Program to assess the impacts of cooling tower salt drift on the environment in the HCGS vicinity provided to NRC by letter dated March 28,1984 from Robert L. Mitti, Public Service Electric & Gas Co., to A. Schwencer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisson.

The monitoring program shall commence one year prior to the onset of l

commercial operation of the HCGS and inc!ude low-power testing and operational data up to three years from receipt of licelse or until such earlier time that the licensee can demonstrate that the objectives of the study have been fulfilled.

l Annual monitoring reports shall be submitted to the NRC for review.

i l

The licensee may make changes in the salt drift monitoring procedures withcut I

1 prior Commission approval unless the proposed change affects the program objectives described in the introduction to the Salt Drift Monitoring Program.

Changes in the procedures, for example, changes which affect sampling frequency, location, gear, or replication, shall be recorded. Records shall describe l

the changes made, the reasons for making the changes, and a statement sho'ving how continuify of the study will be affected. Any modifications or

~

9805220327 980508 PDR ADOCK 05000354 p

PDR

(

2-changes of the monitoring program, once initiated, shall be govemed by the need to maintain consistency with previously used procedures so that direct comparisons of data are technically valid. Such modifications or changes shall be justified and supported by adequate comparative sampling programs or studies demonstrating the comparability of j

results or which provide a basis for making adjustments that would permit direct comparisons. The annual report should describe monitoring procedures and changes in such procedures made during the report period."

The licensee proposes to replace the current text with the following statements, which describe the Salt Drift Monitoring Program final reports and terminate the licensee's commitment to study the cooling tower salt drift phenomon:

"PSE&G has completed the implementation of the Salt Drift Monitoring Program to assess the impacts of cooling tower salt drift on the environment in the HCGS l

vicinity. This study was completed by the submission of two reports: " Pre-operational Summary Report for Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drift Monitoring Program, August 1984-December 1986" and " Operational Summary Report for Hope Creek Generating Station Salt Drift Monitoring Program, January 1987 to March 1989". The pre-operational report was submitted to the NRC on April 30,1987 (NLR-E87144) as an Appendix to the 1986 Annual Environmental Operating Report. The operational report was submitted to the NRC on October 10,1989 (NLR-N89201).

The " Operational Summary Report" contained information that fulfilled the I

requirements of a final report, and therefore will be considered the " Final Report".

This report discusses salt depositon data, native vegetation studies, comparison l

of estimated salt drift and deposition with actual data, environmental effects of salt drift and pre-and post-operational data comparison.

The study indicated that only minor, localized effects of cooling tower drift deposition are occurring. Higher deposition rates potentially attributable to the cooling tower were measured at only one location, which is on station property at a distance of 0.4 km southeast of the cooling tower. The salt deposition rate at this site is 113 mg/m / month, 2

which is well below the deposition levels that have been reported to cause vegetative 2

damage of 10,000 mg/m / year. Hope Creek Generating Station is surrounded by extensive areas of tidal salt marsh and the nearest uplands are located approximately three miles to the east, therefore no significant adverse impacts will occur as a result of l

cooling tower operation.

PSE&G has satisfied the commitments under this requirement. No further monitoring is required."

A March 28,1984 letter to Albert Schwencer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, from Robert L. Mitti, Public Service Electric & Gas Co. delineated the requirements for the HCGS salt drift studies. The salt drift studies were required by the NRC as a condition of the HCGS construction permit in order to evaluate the effects of salt deposition from the HCGS cooling tower on the environment. The letter discussed reporting requirements for both preoperational and operational periods at HCGS. The letter also required a final report, that summarized the results of the salt drift studies for both periods. In lieu of a final report, the licensee has submitted a j

separate final report for each period. The HCGS preoperational salt drift study, performed l

f

. between August 1984 and December 1986, was submitted to NRC on April 30,1987, as an Appendix to the 1986 Annual Environmental Operating Report. The HCGS operational salt drift study, performed between January 1987 and March 1989, was submitted to NRC on October 10, 1989.

1

)

The staff has reviewed both the preoperational and operational salt drift studies, and found that they satisfy the requirements outlined in the March 28,1984 letter.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

t in accordance with the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

1 The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 4321). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: W. Gleaves Date: May 8, 1998 l

l l