[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66509-66512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30735]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-333]
Power Authority of the State of New York; James A FitzPatrick
Nuclear Power Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to 10 CFR part 50 for Facility
Operating License No. NPF-59, issued to the Power Authority of the
State of New York (PASNY or the licensee), for operation of the James
A. FitzPatrick
[[Page 66510]]
Nuclear Power Plant (FitzPatrick), located in Oswego County, New York.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action will revise the existing, or current, Technical
Specifications (CTS) for FitzPatrick in their entirety based on the
guidance provided in NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications
for General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision I, dated April 1995, and
in the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on
July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132). The proposed amendment is in accordance
with the licensee's amendment request dated March 31, 1999, as
supplemented by letters dated May 20, June 1, July 14, and October 14,
1999.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant
Technical Specifications (TS). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants,'' (52 FR
3788) contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TS. Later,
the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993
(58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since publication of the
interim policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to 10 CFR
50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' The ``Final Rule'' (60 FR 36953)
codified criteria for determining the content of TS. To facilitate the
development of standard TS for nuclear power reactors, each power
reactor vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC staff developed standard
TS. For FitzPatrick, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications
(ISTS) are in NUREG-1433, Revision 1. These documents formed part of
the basis for the FitzPatrick Improved Technical Specifications (ITS)
conversion. The NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR)
reviewed the ISTS, made note of its safety merits, and indicated its
support of the conversion by operating plants to the ISTS.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1433, Revision
1, and on guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy
Statement. The objective of the changes is to completely rewrite,
reformat, and streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS).
Emphasis is placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and
understanding of the TS. The Bases section of the ITS has been
significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the purpose and
foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-1433, Revision
1, portions of the CTS were also used as the basis for the development
of the FitzPatrick ITS. Plant-specific issues (e.g., unique design
features, requirements, and operating practices) were discussed with
the licensee, and generic matters were discussed with General Electric
and other OGs.
The proposed changes from the CTS can be grouped into the following
four categories: relocated requirements, administrative changes, less
restrictive changes involving deletion of requirements, and more
restrictive changes. These categories are as follows:
1. Relocated requirements (i.e., the licensee's R or LAn
changes) are items which are in the CTS but do not meet the criteria
set forth in the Final Policy Statement. The Final Policy Statement
establishes a specific set of objective criteria for determining which
regulatory requirements and operating restrictions should be included
in the TS. Relocation of requirements to documents with an established
control program, controlled by the regulations or the TS, allows the TS
to be reserved only for those conditions or limitations upon reactor
operation which are necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal
situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public
health and safety, thereby focusing the scope of the TS. In general,
the proposed relocation of items from the CTS to the Updated Safety
Analysis Report (USAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, plant
procedures, or ITS Bases follows the guidance of NUREG-1433 and NUREG-
1434, Revision 1. Once these items have been relocated to other
licensee-controlled documents, the licensee may revise them under the
provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved control mechanisms,
which provide appropriate procedural means to control changes by the
licensee.
2. Administrative changes (i.e., the licensee's An
changes) involve the reformatting and rewording of requirements,
consistent with the style of the ISTS in NUREG-1433, Revision I, to
make the TS more readily understandable to plant operators and other
users. These changes are purely editorial in nature, or involve the
movement or reformatting of requirements without affecting the
technical content. Application of a standardized format and style will
also help ensure consistency is achieved among specifications in the
TS. During this reformatting and rewording process, no technical
changes (either actual or interpretational) to the TS will be made
unless they are identified and justified.
3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements
involves portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee's Ln) which
(1) provide information that is descriptive in nature regarding the
equipment, systems, actions, or surveillances, (2) provide little or no
safety benefit, and (3) place an unnecessary burden on the licensee.
This information is proposed to be deleted from the CTS and, in some
instances, moved to the proposed Bases, USAR, or procedures. The
removal of descriptive information to the Bases of the TS, USAR, or
procedures is permissible because these documents will be controlled
through a process that utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved
control mechanisms. The relaxations of requirements were the result of
generic NRC actions or other analyses. They will be justified on a
case-by-case basis for FitzPatrick and described in the safety
evaluation to be issued with the license amendment.
4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., the licensee's
Mn changes) are proposed to be implemented in some areas to
impose more stringent requirements than are in the CTS. In some cases,
these more restrictive requirements are being imposed to be consistent
with the ISTS. Such changes have been made after ensuring the
previously evaluated safety analysis for FitzPatrick was not affected.
Also, other more restrictive technical changes have been made to
achieve consistency, correct discrepancies, and remove ambiguities from
the TS. Examples of more restrictive requirements include: placing a
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) on plant equipment which is not
required by the CTS to be operable; more restrictive requirements to
restore inoperable equipment; and more restrictive surveillance
requirements.
There are other proposed changes to the CTS that may be included in
the proposed amendment to convert the CTS to the ITS. These are beyond-
scope changes in that they are changes to both the CTS and the ISTS.
For the FitzPatrick, these are the following:
1. ITS 3.0.3, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) to be in MODE
2 was changed to allow a 9-hour completion time.
[[Page 66511]]
2. ITS 3.3.1.1, Reactor Protection System (RPS) Instrumentation
Function 5, reactor scram on main steam isolation valve (MSIV) closure.
The trip setting valve was changed from less than or equal to 10
percent (in the CTS) to less than or equal to 14 percent in the ITS.
3. ITS 3.3.1.1, Extending Required Action F.1 Completion Time from
6 hours to 8 hours for consistency with Current Licensing Basis (CLB)
and changing 3.0.3 which allows 8 hours to be in MODE 2 after
initiation of Action.
4. ITS 3.3.5.1, Automatic Depressurization System (ADS) initiation
timer and the Containment Spray (CS) and Low-Pressure Coolant Injection
(LPCI) pump start timer values were changed from the CTS and the STS
and tolerances relaxed to allow the extension of CALIBRATION Frequency
to 24 months in the ITS.
5. ITS 3.3.5.1, CS, LPCI and ADS Logic System Functional Test
(LSFT) Frequency was extended from 18 months (in the CTS) to 24 months
in the ITS.
6. ITS 3.4.9, Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Pressure/Temperature (P/
T) Limits in CTS were changed to add a new alternate criteria in ITS to
allow idle recirculating pump (loop) start if the operating loop is
greater than 40 percent flow or if the idle loop is less than 40% flow
for less than or equal to 30 minutes.
7. ITS 3.5.1, ECCS-Operating, High-Pressure Coolant Injection
(HPCI) and LPCI pump flow rates in CTS were reduced to SAFER/GESTR-
Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA) flow rates in the ITS.
8. ITS 3.5.2, ECCS-Shutdown, reduced Residual Heat Removal (RHR)
LPCI pump flow rates in CTS to SAFER/GESTR-LOCA flow rates as in ITS
3.5.1 for RHR LPCI pumps.
9. ITS 3.8.1, AC Sources--Operating, Condition D for two reserve
circuits inoperable in CTS was changed to add new interim power
reduction to less than or equal to 45 percent with a 36-hour Completion
Time in the ITS.
10. ITS 3.8.4, DC Sources--``Operating (in CTS) was changed to
allow 8 hours to restore one inoperable source in the ITS.
11. ITS 5.5, changed Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) and Control Room
Emergency Ventilation Air Supply (CREVAS) system filter testing (in the
CTS) from 6 months (or 12 months) to 24 months in the ITS for
consistency with Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2 or the fuel cycle
length.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed conversion of
the CTS to the ITS for FitzPatrick, including the beyond-scope issues
discussed above. Changes which are administrative in nature have been
found to have no effect on the technical content of the TS. The
increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are
expected to improve the operators control of FitzPatrick in normal and
accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves.
Future changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee
under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control mechanisms which will
ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such
relocations have been found consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-
1431 and the Commission's Final Policy Statement.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
enhance plant safety.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee,
their removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the owners groups, and found to be acceptable for the
plant. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433, Revision 1, have
been reviewed by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide
control of plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
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 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 involves features located entirely within the restricted area
for the plant defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and does not involve any
historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and
have no other environmental impact. They do not increase any discharge
limit for the plant. 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 FES for FitzPatrick.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 4, 1999, the
staff consulted with the New York State official, Jack Spath, of the
New York Energy and Research Authority, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed amendment. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed amendment 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 March 31, 1999, as supplemented by letters
dated May 20, June 1, July 14, and October 14, 1999, which are
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document
Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Publically 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 19th day of November 1999.
[[Page 66512]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sheri R. Peterson,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-30735 Filed 11-24-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P