![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Entergy Nuclear Operations; James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 14, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 42683-42687]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14au01-111]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-333]
Entergy Nuclear Operations; James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power
Plant Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPR-59,
issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations (ENO or the licensee) for
operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant
(FitzPatrick), located in Oswego County, New York. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact. The original
application was submitted by the Power Authority of the State of New
York, (PASNY), and an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was originally published in the Federal
Register (64 FR 66509) on November 26, 1999.
On November 21, 2000, PASNY's ownership interest in FitzPatrick was
transferred to Entergy Nuclear FitzPatrick, LLC, to possess and use
FitzPatrick and to ENO to possess, use and operate FitzPatrick. By
letter dated January 26, 2001, ENO requested that the NRC continue to
review and act on all requests before the Commission which had been
submitted by PASNY before the transfer. As set forth below, PASNY and
ENO submitted several supplements to the application. The information
included in the supplemental letters indicates that the original
notice, which included eleven proposed beyond-scope issues (BSIs) to
the improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs to be
expanded (added 27 new BSIs) and revised to include a total of 38 BSIs.
Accordingly, the NRC is issuing this EA and FONSI, which supercede the
original EA and FONSI.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the existing, or current,
Technical Specifications (TS) for FitzPatrick in
[[Page 42684]]
their entirety based on the guidance provided in NUREG-1433, ``Standard
Technical Specifications for General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' 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 request by PASNY, the former licensee, in a letter
dated March 31,1999, as supplemented by letters dated May 20, June 1,
July 14, October 14, 1999, February 11, April 4, April 13, June 30,
July 31, September 12, September 13, and October 23, 2000. ENO has
supplemented the original application by letter dated May 31, 2001.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power
plants would benefit from the improvement and standardization of plant
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 (59 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, Rev. 1. The NRC Committee to Review Generic
Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the ISTS, made note of their 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 current TS (CTS) are based on NUREG-
1433, Revision 1, and on guidance provided by the Commission in the
Final Policy Statement. The objective of the changes is to completely
rewrite, reformat, and streamline the TS (i.e., to convert the CTS to
Improved Technical Specifications (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 ITS can be grouped into four
categories. These groupings are characterized as administrative
changes, relocation changes, more restrictive changes and less
restrictive changes.
1. Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting,
renumbering, and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-
1433, Rev. 1, and does not involve technical changes to the ITS. The
proposed changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc.,
for NUREG-1433 bracketed information (information that must be supplied
on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant),
(b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c)
changing NUREG-1433 section wording to conform to existing licensee
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events.
2. Relocation changes are those involving relocation of
requirements and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or
variables that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. Relocated
changes are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within
any of the four criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) and may be
relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described
in the attachment of the licensee's March 31, 1999, submittal, which is
entitled, ``Application of NRC Selection Criteria to James A.
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Technical Specifications'' (Split
Report) in Volume 1 of the submittal. The affected structures, systems,
components or variables are not assumed to be initiators of analyzed
events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient events.
The requirements and surveillances for these affected structures,
systems, components, or variables will be relocated from the TS to
administratively controlled documents such as the quality assurance
program, the final safety analysis report (FSAR), the ITS BASES, the
Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) that is incorporated by reference
in the FSAR, the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose
Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST) Program, or
other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these documents
will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other NRC-approved control
mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural means to control
changes by the licensee.
3. More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the ISTS that is more
restrictive than the CTS that the licensee proposes to adopt in the
ITS, the licensee has provided an explanation as to why it has
concluded that adopting the more restrictive requirement is desirable
to ensure safe operation of the facility because of specific design
features of the plant.
4. Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TS may be
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to
individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a)
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution
of the Owners Groups' comments on the ISTS. Generic relaxations
contained in NUREG-1433, Rev. 1 were reviewed by the staff and found to
be acceptable because they are consistent with current licensing
practices and NRC regulations. The licensee's design is being reviewed
to determine if the specific design basis and licensing basis are
consistent with the technical basis for the model requirements in
NUREG-1433, Rev. 1, thus providing a basis for the ITS, or if
relaxation of the requirements in the ITS
[[Page 42685]]
is warranted based on the justification provided by the licensee.
These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less
restrictive changes to the requirements of the ITS do not result in
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an
analyzed accident or transient event.
In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are differences to the
requirements in both the CTS and the ISTS. These proposed beyond-scope
issues to the ITS conversion are as follows:
1. ITS 3.0.3, Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) to be in MODE
2 was changed to allow a 9-hour completion time.
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 currently 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 ISTS
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
(PT) 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
percent flow for less than or equal to 30 minutes.
7. ITS 3.5.1, Emergency Core Cooling System (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.
12. ITS 3.3.5.01 changed CTS Table 3.3-2, Item 5, Reactor Low Level
Containment spray interlock trip level setting of >~0.0 inch to >~1.0
inch in ITS Table 3.3.5.1-1.
13. ITS 3.3.5.1 changed CTS Table 3.2-2 Item 9, Reactor Low
Pressure, LPCI and Core Spray Injection Valve Open Permissive of >450
psig to >410 psig in ITS Table 3.3.4.1-1 Functions 1.c and 2.c.
14. ITS 3.3.5.1 changed the trip setpoint Allowable Values in CTS
Table 3.2-2 for the core Spray Pump Start Timer (item 11), the RHR LPCI
Pump Start Timer (item 12), and the Auto Blowdown Timer (item 13) in
CTS Table 3.3.5.1-1 Functions 1.d, 2.f, 4.b and 5.b to reflect values
corresponding to a 6 month to 24-month reduction in calibration
frequency.
15. ITS 3.3.5.1 changed the trip setpoint Allowable Values in CTS
Table 3.2-1 for the suppression Chamber High Level (item 13) in CTS
Table 3.3.5.1-1 Function 3.e to 14.5 inches which is ~6 inches above
normal level.
16. ITS 3.3.5.1 changed the CTS Table 3.2-2 trip level setting for
Item 24, Reactor Low-pressure from 285 to 335 psig to >~300 psig in ITS
Table 3.3.5.1 Function 2.d.
17. ITS 3.3.6.1 changed the Allowable Values in CTS Table 3.2-1 for
the HPCI Turbine Steam Line High Flow to reflect values corresponding
to 160 to 161 inches of water dp in ITS Table 3.3.6.1-1 Function 3.a.
18. ITS 3.3.6.1 changed the trip setpoint Allowable Value ``HPCI/
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Steam Line Low Pressure'' in CTS
Table 3.3.6.1-1 Function 3.b and 4.b to reflect values corresponding to
>60 and 90 for HPCI and >61 and ~90 for RCIC.
19. ITS 3.3.8.2 changed the Trip Level Settings for Loss of Offsite
Power (LOP) instrumentation listed in CTS Table 3.2.-2 to new ITS
Allowable Values listed in ITS Table 3.3.8.1-1.
20. ITS 3.3.8.2 changed CTS 4.9.G.3 setpoint or Allowable Value of
>~108V to >109.9V in its ITS SR 3.3.8.2.3.
21. ITS 3.4.7 added an RHR Shutdown Cooling-Hot Shutdown
specification to the ITS SPECIFICATION based on the current licensing
basis.
22. ITS 3.6.1.1 changed the location of the details requiring that
the drywell and suppression chamber leakage rate limit shall be
monitored via the suppression chamber 10 minute pressure transient of
0.25 inches of water/minute to ITS B3.6.1.1 Bases--SR 3.6.1.1.2.
23. ITS 3.6.1.3 modifies the ISTS criteria for the surveillance of
Excess Flow Check valves (EFCV) to require that the EFCV be tested for
proper operation to actuate to the isolation position on an actual or
simulated instrument line break. This would be reflected in ITS SR
3.6.1.3.8.
24. ITS 3.6.1.7 modifies CTS 4.7.A.5 by addition of a new
surveillance requirement (ITS SR 3.6.7.1). ITS SR 3.6.7.1, which is
based on ISTS SR 3.6.1.8.1, will require verification that each
suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum breaker is closed every 14 days.
The ITS SR 3.6.7.1 also deletes the ISTS SR 3.6.8.1 requirement in
observing the vacuum breaker position by verifying that a differential
pressure of [0.5]
psid between the suppression chamber and the drywell
is maintained for 1 hour without makeup.
25. ITS 3.6.1.7 ACTION B changes the Completion Time to close the
open vacuum breaker when one suppression chamber-to-drywell vacuum
breaker is not closed to 12 hours instead of 2 hours as required by
ISTS 3.6.1.8 ACTION B.
26. ITS 3.6.1.9 modifies ISTS SR 3.6.1.7.1 RHR Containment Spray
System by deleting the SR Note on system alignment in MODE 3, and adds
the phrase ``or can be aligned to the correct position'' in ITS SR
3.6.1.9.1. The details of the SR Note have been relocated to ITS
B3.6.1.9 Bases--LCO.
27. ITS 3.6.2.3 modifies ISTS B3.6.2.3--LCO by adding an insert
that defines RHR Suppression Pool Cooling System OPERABILITY in MODE 3.
The addition is for enhanced clarity or consistency with other Bases
and is not in the ISTS.
28. ITS 3.8.1 deletes the requirement that all core and containment
cooling systems and shutdown cooling systems are OPERABLE in the CTS
3.9.B.2 requirement that allows operation for 7 days with 2 offsite
circuits inoperable, provided that all EDGs are OPERABLE and all core
and containment cooling systems and shutdown cooling systems are
OPERABLE. Instead, ITS 3.8.1 would add a requirement to declare
required features inoperable when the redundant required features are
[[Page 42686]]
inoperable, and a requirement to reduce power to less than 45 percent
or RTP. The 7-day completion time to restore both offsite circuits to
OPERABLE status would remain unchanged.
29. ITS 3.3.1.1 replaces the CTS 2.1.5, ``Main Steam Line Isolation
Valve Closure Scram'' trip setting from 10 percent closure to 14
percent closure in proposed ITS Table 3.3.1.1-1 Function 5, ``Main
Steam Line Isolation Valve-Closure''.
30. ITS 3.3.3.1 changes the CTS Table 3.2-8, Note k by a footnote
(c) in ITS Table 3.3.3.1-1, Function 10, Suppression Pool Water
Temperature operability, which states ``A channel requires 15 of 16
RTDs to be OPERABLE.''
31. ITS 3.3.3.1 relaxes the CTS Table 3.2-8 Note A requirement to
be in cold shutdown within 24 hours when one or more of Items 15
through 18 (ECCS or Primary containment cooling operating Parameters)
PAM channel(s) have not been restored to operable status within 30
days. ITS 3.3.3.1 ACTION B specifies initiating action in accordance
with ITS 5.5.6, which relates to reporting requirements.
32. ITS 3.3.3.1 adds additional instrument requirements to the CTS
Table 3.2-8, which includes a Reactor Vessel Water Level Function and
for Drywell Water Level.
33. ITS 3.3.3.2 relocates details in CTS Table 3.2-10 relating to
Instrument and control functions of the Remote Shutdown System
(including number of channels and divisions), which are unnecessary in
the LCO, to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM).
34. ITS 3.3.4.1 changes the CTS and ISTS channel configuration from
2 channels per trip system to 4 channels in one trip system.
35. ITS 3.5.1 added several ACTIONS (ACTION A, B, C, E, G, H, I,
and J) that neither conform to the CTS nor adopt the ISTS. These are
new actions to the Core Spray systems, the low pressure coolant
injection systems and the high pressure coolant injection systems.
36. ITS 3.5.3 divides the existing CTS 4.5.E.1.d SR that ``RCIC
delivers at least 400 gpm against a system head corresponding to a
reactor vessel pressure of 1195 psig to 150 psig'' into two separate
Surveillance Requirements: ITS SR 3.4.3.5 and ITS SR 3.5.3.6.
37. ITS 3.5.3 adds an additional requirement to CTS SR 3.5.3.3 that
requires the performance of the surveillance ``Once each startup prior
to exceeding 25 percent RTP.''
38. ITS 3.3.1.1 changed low function set points on the Allowable
Values for Reactor Pressure, High Turbine Stop Valve Closure and
Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure, EHC Oil Pressure in CTS 2.1.A.4,
and CTS Table 3.1-1.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to 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 were 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 the requirements from the ITS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves.
Future changes to these requirements may 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-
1433, Rev.1, and the Commissions'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, the relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of 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 have the potential
to affect any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant
effluents and have no other environmental impact. It does 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 the current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resource not previously
considered in the FES for FitzPatrick.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On June 27, 2001, the staff consulted with the New York State
official, Mr. 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, October 14, 1999, February 11, April 4,
April 13, June 30, July 31, September 12, September 13, October 23,
2000, and May 31, 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
[[Page 42687]]
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 7th day of August 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard P. Correia,
Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate 1, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-20402 Filed 8-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P