[Federal Register: June 22, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 121)]
[Notices]
[Page 33583-33584]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22jn01-107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-354]
PSEG Nuclear Limited Liability Company; Hope Creek Generating
Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License (FOL) No. NPF-
57, issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC, (the licensee), for operation of the
Hope Creek Generating Station (HCGS) located in Lower Alloways Creek
Township, Salem County, New Jersey.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed
The proposed license amendment would revise the FOL and Technical
Specifications (TSs) for the HCGS, to allow the licensee to increase
the licensed core power level from 3,293 megawatts thermal (MWt) to
3,339 MWt, which represents a 1.4-percent increase in the allowable
thermal power. The NRC authorized HCGS for full power production at
3,293 MWt with issuance of the FOL on July 25, 1986. In addition to the
power uprate, the proposed license amendment would allow the licensee
to make editorial changes to the TS Bases and Index sections.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for license amendment dated December 1, 2000, as
supplemented by letters dated February 12, May 7, and May 14, 2001.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action would allow an increase in power generation at
HCGS to provide additional electrical power for distribution to the
grid. In certain circumstances, power uprate has been recognized as a
safe and cost-effective method to increase generating capacity. The
proposed action would also allow editorial changes to the TS Bases and
Index sections to provide corrections to references and typographical
errors.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes that implementation of the proposed amendment would not have
a significant impact on the environment.
With regard to potential radiological impacts, the licensee has
evaluated the proposed 1.4-percent power uprate with respect to its
effect on the consequences of postulated design-basis accidents and on
normal releases of liquid and gaseous effluents. For postulated design-
basis accidents, the effects of the proposed power uprate are bounded
by current licensing basis dose analyses. No increase in the
probability of these accidents is expected to occur. For liquid and
gaseous effluents, the offsite doses resulting from normal releases are
not impacted by the proposed power uprate because the uprated power is
less than the core power level that was used for the source term
development in the existing analyses. The release volumes from the
liquid and solid waste processing systems are not expected to change as
a result of the proposed power level change. The proposed editorial
changes to the TSs are administrative in nature and would have no
radiological impact. The proposed action will not significantly
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 occupational or public
radiation exposure. Based on the
[[Page 33584]]
above, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. With regard to other non-
radiological impacts, the licensee performed an environmental
evaluation, as documented in the submittal dated May 14, 2001, that
considered thermal effects, consumptive uses, and particulate
emissions. This evaluation was performed assuming a 1.5-percent uprated
power value, thus bounding the proposed 1.4-percent power uprate. The
evaluation was performed as required by the Environmental Protection
Plan (EPP) for HCGS (Appendix B to FOL No. NPF-57). The EPP states that
``[e]nvironmental concerns identified in the FES-OL [Final
Environmental Statement--Operating Licensing Stage (NUREG-1074, dated
December 1984)] which relate to water quality matters are regulated by
way of the licensee's NPDES [New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination
System] permit.'' The NJDES permit imposes limits on plant effluents
that are discharged to the Delaware River estuary. The licensee's
environmental evaluation concluded that there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed power
uprate and that the current NJDES permit limits would not require any
changes. The proposed editorial changes to the TSs are administrative
in nature and would have no non-radiological impact. Based on the
above, the staff concludes that there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
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
HCGS.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on June 7, 2001, the staff
consulted with the New Jersey State official, Mr. Dennis Zannoni, of
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC 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 December 1, 2000, as supplemented by letter
dated February 12, May 7, and May 14, 2001. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard B. Ennis,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-15707 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P