Posted by [EMAIL PROTECTED] : Sent by Larry Kibby via Paths-L > [Federal Register: December 15, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 240)] > [Notices] > [Page 70073-70076] > >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] > [DOCID:fr15de99-100] > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION > > [Docket No. 50-410] > > > Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Nine Mile Point Nuclear > Station, Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No > Significant Impact > > The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is > considering the issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License > No. NPF-69 issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee), > for operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (NMP2), > located in Oswego County, New York. > > Environmental Assessment > > Identification of the Proposed Action > > The proposed amendment will revise the existing, or current, > Technical Specifications (CTS) for NMP2 in their entirety based on the > guidance provided in NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434, ``Standard Technical > Specifications for General Electric Plants, BWR/4 and BWR/6,'' Revision > 1, 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 October 16, > 1998, as supplemented by letters dated December 30, 1998; and May 10, > June 15, July 30, August 11, 16, 19, 27, and September 10, 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 NMP2, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) are > in NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434, Revision 1. These documents formed part > of the basis for the NMP2 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 and NUREG- > 1434, 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 and > NUREG-1434, Revision 1, portions of the CTS were also used as the basis > for the development of the NMP2 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. > > [[Page 70074]] > > 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 LG or R changes) > are items which are in the CTS but do not meet the criteria set forth > in 10 CFR 50.36. This regulation 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 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 A changes) involve > the reformatting and rewording of requirements, consistent with the > style of the ISTS in NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434, Revision 1, 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. These > changes involve reformatting and rewording; no technical changes > (either actual or interpretational) to the TS will be made with respect > to these changes. > 3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements > involve portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee's LS and TR changes) > 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 NMP2 and described in the safety evaluation to > be issued with the license amendment. > 4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., the licensee's M 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 NMP2 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 (changes that are not consistent with the CTS and/or > NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434, Revision 1) in that they are changes to both > the CTS and the ISTS. For the NMP2, these are the following: > 1. ITS 3.1.8, changing the Scram Discharge Volume Vent and Drain > Valve ACTIONS to allow continued operation with one valve in a line > inoperable by isolating the penetration within 7 days (ACTION A) and to > allow continued operation with two valves in a line inoperable by > isolating the penetration within 8 hours (ACTION B). The ISTS requires > the valves(s) to be restored to Operable status within 7 days. > 2. ITS 3.3.1.1, ITS 3.3.6.1, ITS 3.5.1, and ITS 3.5.2, adding a > Note to the Reactor Protection System (RPS) (Functions 3 and 4) and > Isolation (Main Steam Line Isolation Valve (MSIV) Functions) > Instrumentation Specifications exempting the sensors from response time > testing and a Note to the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS)-- > Operating and--Shutdown Specifications exempting the instrumentation > from response time testing. > 3. ITS 3.3.2.2, allowing the feedwater pump to be removed from > service in lieu of shutting down the unit to <25 percent Rated Thermal > Power (RTP) when the feedwater and main turbine high water level > channels are inoperable and untripped. > 4. ITS 3.3.3.1, ITS 3.3.3.2, ITS 3.3.8.2, ITS 3.3.8.3 and ITS > 3.4.7, adding a Note to allow 6 hours to do Surveillance testing of the > Post Accident Monitoring, Remote Shutdown System, RPS logic bus > Electrical Power Monitoring Assemblies (EPAs), RPS scram solenoid bus > EPAs and Leak Detection System, instrumentation channels prior to > entering ACTIONS. > 5. ITS 3.3.4.2, adding an allowance to only remove the associated > Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS)-recirculation pump trip > (RPT) breaker (fast speed or slow speed, as applicable) from service, > in lieu of removing the entire pump from service. > 6. ITS 3.3.5.1, ITS 3.3.8.1, ITS 3.3.8.2 and ITS 3.3.8.3, changing > the Allowable Values for (a) the Low-Pressure Cooling Injection (LPCI) > and High-Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) minimum flow valves > instrumentation; (b) the HPCS suppression pool water level swap over > instrumentation; (c) the Loss of Voltage and Degraded Voltage > Functions, including time delays; (d) the Undervoltage, Overvoltage, > and Underfrequency Functions for the RPS Logic Bus EPAs; and (e) the > Undervoltage, Overvoltage, and Underfrequency Functions for the RPS > Scram Solonoid Bus EPAs. > 7. ITS 3.3.6.1, deleting the MODE 1 and 2 requirements for certain > Shutdown Cooling Isolation Functions (residual heat removal (RHR) > Equipment Area temperature, Reactor Building Pipe Chase Temperature, > Reactor Building Temperature, and Reactor Vessel Water Level--Low, > Level 3.) > 8. ITS 3.3.8.1 and ITS 3.3.5.1, deleting the Group 4 valves from > isolation instrumentation requirements. > 9. ITS 3.3.8.1, changing the requirement to only requiring 2 > channels of degraded voltage and loss of voltage in lieu of three > channels. > 10. ITS SR 3.4.1.1 requiring verification every 12 hours that > operation is in the ``Unrestricted Zone'' of ITS Figure 3.4.1-1. > 11. ITS 3.4.1, changing from 2 hours to 8 hours, the frequency for > determining the Average Power Range Monitors (APRM) and Low Power Range > Monitors (LPRM) baseline noise level the first time the unit is in the > Restricted Zone. > > [[Page 70075]] > > 12. ITS 3.4.5, changing the frequency for monitoring the floor > drain leakage rate from 8 hours to 12 hours, and changing the airborne > radioactivity monitoring Surveillance to be every 8 hours. > 13. ITS 3.5.1, changing the current number of Automatic Depression > System (ADS) valves required to operate from seven to six. > 14. ITS 3.5.1, modifying the current requirement of manually > opening the ADS valves to only require the ADS actuators to be cycled. > 15. ITS 3.6.1.3, changing the current requirement that each excess > flow check valve (EFCV) must ``check flow'' to requiring each EFCV to > actuate to its isolation position on an actual or simulated instrument > line break signal. > 16. ITS 3.6.1.3, changing the evolution to suspend the purging and > venting LCO ACTIONS to within 1 hour, when Standby Gas Treatment (SGT) > subsystem(s) are inoperable. > 17. ITS 3.6.1.6, ITS 3.6.2.3 and ITS 3.5.2.4, deleting the current > requirements to verify position of ``automatic'' valves in the RHR > Drywell Spray, RHR Suppression Cooling, and RHR Suppression Pool Spray > Systems. > 18. ITS 3.6.1.6 and ITS 3.6.2.4, deleting the current requirement > that drywell spray and suppression pool spray flows be through the heat > exchanger. > 19. ITS 3.7.2 and ITS 3.7.3, allowing a 7-day restoration time when > both Control Room Envelope Filtration (CREF) subsystems are inoperable > and a 30-day restoration time when both control room envelope > alternating current (AC) subsystems are inoperable, provided the > remaining components of the CREF System or Control Room Envelope AC > System maintains the CREF System or Control Room Envelope AC System > safety function, as applicable. > 20. ITS 3.8.1, ITS 3.8.2, and ITS 3.8.3, changing AC Sources-- > Operating, AC Sources--Shutdown and Diesel Fuel Oil, Lube Oil, and > Starting Air Specifications to include: (a) more restrictive upper and > lower voltage limits for various diesel generator (DG) Surveillances; > (b) increasing the killowatt (kW) value for the single largest load > surveillance requirement (SR) for the Division 3 DG; (c) relaxing the > load range values for the 24-hour DG run to be consistent with > Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.9 Revision 3 (ISTS Bases says 100 percent for > 22 hours and 110 percent for 2 hours is consistent with RG 1.9 > Reference 3, which is not accurate); (d) increasing the DG start time > in the event of a Loss of Voltage signal from 13 seconds to 13.12 > seconds; (e) adding a Note which exempts Surveillances pertaining to a > DG starting on a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) signal and a LOCA/loss > of offsite power (LOOP) signal while in Modes 4 and 5 and during > handling of irradiated fuel in the Secondary Containment when the ECCS > subsystems are not required to be Operable; and (f) increasing the fuel > oil storage tank limits for the Division 1 and 2 DGs as well as the 6- > day limits for all three DGs. > 21. ITS 3.8.4, changing the DC Sources--Operating Specification by: > (a) revising the battery load profile to be consistent with the load > profile specified in the USAR; and (b) adding an allowance to perform a > modified performance discharge test every cycle in lieu of a service > test. > 22. ITS 3.8.7, requiring that the inverters be capable of being > powered from an uninterruptible power supply (direct current (DC) > source). Currently, this is not required; this is a more restrictive > change. > 23. ITS 3.3.8.3, specifying an allowable value in the ITS for the > time delay setting of the RPS EPA--solenoid instrumentation. > 24. ITS 3.3.8.1, deleting a requirement in the ISTS for performing > a channel check on undervoltage relays; the status of relays are > continuously monitored. > 25. ITS 3.3.8.2, specifying allowances in allowable values for the > time delay settings of the RPS EPA logic instrumentation. > 26. ITS 3.3.4.2, adding additional verification of ATWS trip > function bypass and time delays. > 27. ITS 3.3.8.1, The STS allows a 2-hour delay from entering into > the associated Conditions and Required Actions for a channel placed in > an inoperable status solely for the performance of required > surveillances, provided the associated function maintains DG initiation > capability. This is changed in the ITS ``provided the Associated > Function maintains ``LOP'' [loss of power] initiation capability.'' > 28. ITS 5.5.9.1.a, adding ``specific gravity'' to the acceptability > of new fuel oil before adding to the DG fuel tanks. > 29. ITS SR 3.6.3.1.2, adding a description of an additional > requirement in the Bases SR 3.6.3.1.2 regarding when to perform the > surveillance (``within 30 minutes following heatup of the system to > normal operating temperature.'') > 30. ITS SR 3.3.1.1.16, modifying the Response Time Testing > requirement for Function 9, Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure, Trip > Oil Pressure--Low by stating that the response time is measured from > the start of the control valve fast closure, not when the sensor (oil > pressure sensor) exceeds its setpoint. > 31. ITS 3.3.5.1, specifying an ADS pressure setpoint of 150 psig, > implementing Topical Report NEDC-32291, and making other changes > associated with moving Group 4 isolation valves into the ECCS TS in the > ITS. > 32. ITS 3.3.5.1, Table 3.3.5.1-1, specifying an ADS pressure > setpoint for low-pressure core spray (LPCS) pump discharge pressure-- > high to be 150 psig based on implementation of Topical Report NEDC- > 32291. > 33. ITS 3.3.2.1, deleting operational details in CTS Table 3.3.6-2 > (Control Rod Block Instrumentation Set Points) not required to be TS, > and providing allowable values based on NEDO-2411 which is not > referenced in the ISTS. > 34. ITS 3.3.6.1, deleting the reactor core isolation cooling (RCIC) > drywell pressure high isolation functions, providing new RCIC/RHR Steam > Flow Timer and SGT Exhaust Radiation High isolation functional > allowable values, and deleting the main steam line (MSL) radiation high > isolation function. > 35. ITS 3.6.1.2, changing the requirement to verify that the air > lock door seal leakage rate is within limit from ``once per 7 days'' to > ``once in 30 days.'' > 36. ITS 3.6.1.7, adding a note to allow a separate condition entry > for each suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breaker. > 37. ITS 3.6.1.7, changing the ACTION statement into two ACTION > statements: ITS 3.6.1.7 ACTION B addresses the closing of the open > vacuum breaker within 72 hours, while ITS 3.6.1.7 ACTION C addresses > the verification/closing of the other vacuum breaker in the line within > 2 hours. However, both ITS 3.6.1.7 Conditions B and C have been > modified such that the words ``One or more lines with'' have been > added. > 38. ITS 3.4.4, increasing the lift setpoint tolerance for the > safety/relief valves to 3 percent. > 39. ITS 3.3.1.1, deleting the MSL radiation monitor reactor trip > requirement and surveillance requirement based on the application of > NEDO-31400A. > 40. ITS 3.7.2, SR 3.7.2.1, deleting the staggered testing > requirement for the CREF subsystem. > 41. ITS 3.3.1.2, adding a note to ITS SR 3.3.1.2.5 that defers > determination of the signal-to-noise ratio in Mode 5 if less than or > equal to four fuel assemblies are adjacent to the source range monitors > (SRM) and no fuel is in the quadrant. > 42. ITS 3.3.1.2, changing the STS Action to ``initiate action to > insert all > > [[Page 70076]] > > insertable control rods * * *'' to ``Initiate action to ``fully'' > insert all insertable control rods * * *'' > 43. ITS 3.3.5.1, ITS Table 3.3.5.1-1, changing footnote (a) from > the STS to include a citation of LCO 3.5.2 which amplifies the ECCS > equipment instrumentation requirements. > 44. ITS 5.5.2.b, adding a note that the provisions of SR 3.0.2 > apply to integrated leak tests at 24 months. > 45. ITS 3.8.8, incorporating changes to Condition A, B and C of the > STS applicable to ``one or more'' Divisions and to ``one or both.'' > 46. ITS 3.6.4.1, incorporating wording changes that alter the > meaning of containment operability with respect to meeting surveillance > requirements which relates to whether the inoperability of the standby > gas treatment system constitutes a failure of the surveillance of the > secondary containment integrity test. > > Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action > > The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed > conversion of the CTS to the ITS for NMP2, 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 NMP2 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 to be consistent with the guidelines of > NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434 and 10 CFR 50.36 does not require that the > requirements be included in the TS. > Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to > enhance plant safety. > Changes involving less restrictive requirements have also been > reviewed. 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 OG, and found to be acceptable for the plant. > Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1433 and NUREG-1434, 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 amendment will not increase the probability or > consequences of accidents, will not change the quantity or types of any > effluent that may be released offsite, and will not significantly > increase the occupational or public radiological exposure. Also, these > changes do not increase the licensed power and allowable effluents for > the plant. The changes will not create any new or unreviewed > environmental impacts that were not considered in the Final > Environmental Statement (FES) related to the operation of NMP2, (NUREG- > 1085, dated May 1985). Therefore, there are no significant radiological > impacts associated with the proposed amendment. > With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed > amendment involves features located entirely within the restricted area > for the plant defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and does not involve any > historical sites. They do not affect non-radiological plant effluents > and have no other environmental impact. They do not increase any > discharge limit for the plant. Therefore, there are no significant non- > radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed > amendment. > Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant > environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment. > > 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 NMP2, > dated May 1985. > > Agencies and Persons Consulted > > In accordance with its stated policy, the staff consulted with the > New York State official, Jack Spath, of the New York Energy and > Research Authority on November 4, 1999, 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 Commission > concludes that the proposed amendment will not have a significant > adverse 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 application dated October 16, 1998, as supplemented by > letters dated December 30, 1998; and May 10, June 15, July 30, August > 11, 16, 19, 27, and September 10, 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 9th day of December 1999. > > For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. > Alexander W. Dromerick, > Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing > Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. > [FR Doc. 99-32492 Filed 12-14-99; 8:45 am] > BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
