[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26885-26886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12191]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-272 and 50-311]


 PSEG Nuclear LLC; Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to the Facility Operating License (FOL) Nos. 
DPR-70 and DPR-75 issued to PSEG Nuclear LLC (the licensee) for 
operation of Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem), Unit Nos. 1 and 
2. The facility is located at the licensee's site on the southern end 
of Artificial Island in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County, 
New Jersey. Salem, New Jersey is located approximately 7.5 miles 
northeast of the site.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed license amendment would revise the FOL and Technical 
Specifications (TS) of Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, to allow the licensee 
to increase the licensed core power level of each unit from 3,411 
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,459 MWt, which represents a 1.4 percent 
increase in the allowable thermal power. Salem Unit No. 1 was granted 
conditional authorization for power production by its FOL issued on 
August 13, 1976. The conditions provided a sequential approach to full 
power with NRC approval at various stages. Full power operation of Unit 
No. 1 at 3,338 MWt core power was authorized by letter dated April 6, 
1977. Amendment No. 71 to the original FOL was issued on February 6, 
1986, which authorized a power uprate for Unit No. 1 to 3,411 MWt. 
Salem Unit No. 2 was authorized for power production at 3,411 MWt with 
issuance of the FOL on May 20, 1981. In addition to the power uprate, 
the proposed license amendment would allow the licensee to remove 
Attachment 1 from the Unit No. 1 FOL, and to make editorial changes to 
the TS Bases.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for license amendment dated November 10, 2000, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 5, 2000, March 28 and April 2, 
2001, and April 20, 2001 (LRN-01-0099, LRN-01-0115, and LRN-01-0123).

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action will allow an increase in power generation at 
Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 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 also will allow the removal of Attachment 1 
from the Salem Unit No. 1 FOL and editorial changes to the TS Bases. 
Attachment 1 to the Salem Unit No. 1 FOL identifies incomplete 
preoperational tests, startup tests and other items which were required 
to be completed before proceeding to certain specified Operational 
Modes during the initial full power startup of Salem Unit No. 1. The 
NRC authorized full power operation of Salem Unit No. 1 by letter dated 
April 6, 1977; therefore, the requirements identified in the attachment 
are no longer applicable. Editorial changes will provide corrections to 
references and typographical errors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The environmental impact associated with operation of Salem, Unit 
Nos. 1

[[Page 26886]]

and 2, has been previously evaluated by the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission in the ``Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation 
of Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated April 1973. 
In this evaluation, the staff considered the potential doses due to 
postulated accidents for the site, at the site boundary, and to the 
population within 50 miles of the site. With regard to the consequences 
of postulated accidents, the licensee has reevaluated the current 
licensing basis analyses in its application for license amendment and 
determined the doses estimated in existing evaluations to remain 
bounding for the proposed 1.4% power uprate. No increase in the 
probability of these accidents is expected to occur. The removal of 
Attachment 1 from the Salem Unit No. 1 FOL and editorial changes to the 
TS Bases will not impact the probability or consequences of any 
postulated accidents.
    With regard to normal releases, the current licensing basis 
analyses estimates the dose received inside and outside containment 
during normal operation based on 3,558 MWt core power. Therefore, the 
proposed 1.4% power uprate to 3,459 MWt core power is bounded by the 
current analyses and the offsite doses from normal effluent releases 
remain significantly below the bounding limits of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, Appendix I. Normal annual 
average gaseous releases remain limited to a small fraction of 10 CFR 
Part 20 limits for identified mixtures. In addition, the solid and 
liquid waste production may increase slightly; however, the waste 
production assumed in the analyses for normal operations at 3,558 MWt 
core power will bound the waste production expected for the power 
uprate. Solid and liquid waste processing systems are expected to 
operate within their design requirements. The removal of Attachment 1 
from the Salem Unit No. 1 FOL and editorial changes to the TS Bases 
will not cause an increase in the on site and off site radiation 
exposure or in the amount of waste produced and released during normal 
operations.
    The staff has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that the proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. With regard to thermal 
discharges to the Delaware River estuary, Appendix B to FOL Nos. DPR-70 
and DPR-75, ``Environmental Protection Plan,'' states that 
``[e]nvironmental concerns identified in the FES-OL [Final 
Environmental Statement--Operating License Stage (dated April 1973)] 
which relate to water quality matters are regulated by way of the 
licensee's NJPDES [New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System] 
permit.'' The current NJPDES Permit imposes limits on Circulating Water 
System (CWS) flow to a 30-day average of 3,024 million gallons per day. 
In addition, the NJPDES limits the temperature of the discharged water 
to 115  deg.F between June 1 and September 30, and 110  deg.F for the 
remainder of the year. Also, the maximum permissible differential 
temperature of the water discharged from Salem, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, is 
27.5  deg.F. The licensee stated that normal discharge water 
differential temperature is approximately 15  deg.F, and that the 
increase in temperature of the water discharged to the Delaware River 
resulting from the power uprate to 3,459 MWt core power will be 
approximately 0.3  deg.F. Existing administrative controls will ensure 
the conduct of adequate monitoring such that appropriate actions can be 
taken to preclude exceeding the limits imposed by the NJPDES.
    The removal of Attachment 1 from the Salem Unit No. 1 FOL and 
editorial changes to the TS Bases will not impact thermal discharges to 
the Delaware River. No additional requirements or other changes are 
required as a result of the power uprate and the associated FOL and TS 
changes.
    No other nonradiological impacts are associated with the proposed 
action.
    Based upon the above, the staff concludes that the proposed action 
does not significantly affect nonradiological plant effluents and has 
no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological 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 
Salem Nuclear Generating Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 1, 2001, the staff 
consulted with the New Jersey State official, Mr. R. Pinney 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 application dated November 10, 2000, as supplemented by 
letters dated December 5, 2000, March 28 and April 2, 2001, and three 
letters dated April 20, 2001 (LRN-01-0099, LRN-01-0115, and LRN-01-
0123). 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 ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http:\\www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of May 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Fretz,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-12191 Filed 5-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P