[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17373-17374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8311]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (OCNGS), located in
Ocean County, New Jersey.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the Technical Specification (TS)
to allow 2645 fuel assemblies to be stored in the fuel pool. This is an
increase of 45 fuel assemblies from the current limit of 2600 contained
in TS 5.3.1.E. The 45 additional storage locations exist in racks in
the fuel pool.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendment dated November 25, 1994, as supplemented by
letter dated February 15, 1995.
Background
During the spent fuel pool expansion project in 1983, the licensee
designed and installed 10 free standing high density spent fuel racks
in the spent fuel pool to increase the spent fuel storage capacity from
1800 to 2645 spent fuel assemblies. However, the licensee elected to
impose a TS limit of 2600 spent fuel assemblies (approved by the staff
in License Amendment No. 76, dated September 17, 1984) to be stored in
the spent fuel pool at the time. The increased capacity from 1800 to
2600 spent fuel assemblies would meet anticipated spent fuel storage
requirements through 1992. An Environmental Assessment and Finding of
No Significant Impact supporting this action was issued on September
13, 1984. The additional 45 fuel assembly storage locations were not
licensed with License Amendment No. 76 because it was believed that
they would not be needed for spent fuel storage. (It was anticipated
that an off-site spent fuel storage facility would be available after
1992.) These additional storage locations were, therefore, used for the
storage of miscellaneous equipment such as fuel channels.
As the result of the recent refueling (Cycle 15R) which took place
in December 1994 and the present unavailability of an off-site spent
fuel storage facility, OCNGS has lost the capability to completely
offload the reactor core. The licensee is in the process of installing
a dry storage facility on-site which is scheduled to be operational in
1996. This provision of a dry storage facility on-site will allow full
core offload beyond the current operating cycle (Cycle 15) until such
time as an off-site spent fuel storage facility is available. The OCNGS
on-site spent fuel storage facility is presently under construction.
Consequently, the licensee proposed to use the additional 45 fuel
assembly storage locations for spent fuel storage.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is required should a full core offload be
necessary during Cycle 15 with the proposed dry spent fuel storage
facility not yet in service. Without the ability to fully offload the
core, any inspection or repair activity will most likely result in
higher personnel exposure and schedular delays. Full core offload
capability, in particular, would facilitate any in-vessel repair which
requires draining of the vessel.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that based on its review, the licensee's proposal to
increase the spent fuel pool capacity to 2645 fuel assemblies is
acceptable. In addition, the staff has determined that the conclusions
reached in the staff's SE dated September 17, 1984, supporting
Amendment No. 76, and the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact--Spent Fuel Pool Expansion dated September 13, 1994
remains applicable.
Radiological Environmental Impacts
In the staff's Environmental Assessment dated September 13, 1984,
regarding increasing the spent fuel pool capability from 1800 to 2600
spent fuel assemblies, the staff concluded that the potential
radiological environmental impacts associated with the expansion of the
spent fuel storage capacity were evaluated and determined to be
environmentally insignificant. The basis for the staff's conclusions
were determined by the staff's evaluation of (1) radioactive materials
released to the atmosphere, (2) solid radioactive wastes, (3) liquid
radioactive waste, and (4) the staff's radiological assessment.
Considering the small incremental addition to the licensed storage
[[Page 17374]] capacity, the environmental radiological conclusions
stated in the staff's Environmental Assessment dated September 13,
1984, are not altered by the storage of 45 additional spent fuel
assemblies.
Nonradiological Assessment
In the staff's Environmental Assessment dated September 13, 1984,
the staff also concluded that the nonradiological impacts of the OCNGS
as designed, were considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES)
issued in December 1974 and that the OCNGS spent fuel pool expansion
will not result in nonradiological environmental effects significantly
greater or different from those already reviewed and analyzed in the
FES.
Considering the smaller incremental addition to the licensed
storage capacity, the environmental nonradiological conclusions stated
in the staff's Environmental Assessment dated September 13, 1984, are
not altered by the storage of 45 additional spent fuel assemblies.
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. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the
request. Such action would likely result in higher personnel exposure
and schedular delays. As discussed previously the licensee is
constructing an on-site spent fuel storage facility.
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 November 25, 1994, as supplemented by letter
dated February 15, 1995, 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, Toms River, NJ 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of March 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Phillip F. McKee,
Director, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-8311 Filed 4-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
