Jump to main content.

GPU Nuclear Corporation; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Sta

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 

GPU Nuclear Corporation; Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Sta



[Federal Register: February 16, 1995]









NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION



[Docket No. 50-219]

 


GPU Nuclear Corporation; Oyster Creek 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 GPU Nuclear Corporation, (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 change the setpoints of Technical 
Specification 2.3.D, ``Reactor High Pressure, Relief Valve Initiation'' 
by increasing the setpoint value by 15 psig for each of the 
Electromatic Relief Valve (EMRVs) in the Automatic Depressurization 
System.

    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated June 15, 1994, as supplemented by 
letter dated September 23, 1994, and November 3, 1994.



The Need for the Proposed Action



    The proposed action is needed because the ``Bourden tube'' type 
pressure switches currently in use at Oyster Creek experience drift, 
which results in exceeding the existing ``as found'' setpoint. 
Increasing the specified setpoints by 15 psig will provide for 
expanding the ``as found'' tolerance bands. Increasing these tolerance 
bands serves to ensure that the setpoints will remain within the 
Technical Specification requirements [[Page 9057]] over a nominal 24 
month operating cycle.



Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action



    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the licensee has provided information supporting the 
use of a 1.04 multiplier. This multiplier is applied to pool dynamic 
loads previously calculated for the plant unique analysis report 
(PUAR), to account for the EMRV setpoint increase and to account for 
errors in calculations of the PUAR loads due to use of an incorrect 
EMRV flow rating. The staff has reviewed the licensee's basis for use 
of the multiplier and finds it acceptable. The staff also finds that 
the structural analysis of the affected plant components was adequately 
conservative to demonstrate acceptability of the EMRV setpoint change.
    The proposed amendment involves a minor change in the operation of 
the facility. The change will 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 there 
are no significant 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 in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect nonradiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.



Alternatives to the Proposed 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 Generating Station.



Agencies and Persons Consulted



    In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the 
New Jersey State official 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.

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated June 15, 1994, as supplemented by letters dated 
September 23, and November 3, 1994, 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 Library, 101 Washington 
Street, Tows River, NJ 08753.



    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of February 1995.



    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,

Director, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-3876 Filed 2-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.