[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