[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23820]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 27, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-286]

 

Power Authority of the State of New York; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix R, ``Fire Protection Program for Nuclear Power 
Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,'' Section III.G.3, to 
the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee) for the 
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3), located at the 
licensee's site in Westchester County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    Section III.G.3 of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, specifies 
requirements to ensure that the alternate shutdown system is 
independent of shutdown equipment that does not meet the requirements 
of Section III.G.2 of Appendix R. Section III.G.2 of Appendix R 
specifies requirements to ensure that one train of redundant equipment 
necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown remains free of fire 
damage.
    During a programmatic review of the Fire Protection Program and 
Appendix R compliance strategy at Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 
No. 3, the Power Authority of the State of New York identified that the 
alternate shutdown system did not meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3. Specifically, components in the 
alternate shutdown system were located in the same fire area as 
redundant shutdown instrumentation cables which did not meet the 
requirements of Section III.G.2 of Appendix R.
    The licensee has, therefore, requested exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3, to allow 
an operator to enter the fire area to perform manual actions.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption is needed to permit the licensee to operate 
the plant without being in violation of the Commission's regulations 
and to obviate the need for modifications. Physical modification of the 
plant to achieve compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section 
III.G.3, would require design changes, for example: wrapping one 
redundant train of instrumentation cables in a 1 hour fire wrap, or 
relocation of the instrument isolation cabinets out of fire area ETN-4 
or the construction of the fire barriers to make the upper penetration 
area a separate fire area. The detailed development and implementation 
of such design changes would result in a significant expenditure of 
engineering and financial resources without a significant safety 
benefit.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    Section III.G.3 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, specifies 
requirements to ensure that the alternate shutdown system is 
independent of shutdown equipment that does not meet the requirements 
of Section III.G.2 of Appendix R. Section III.G.2 of Appendix R 
specifies requirements to ensure that one train of redundant equipment 
necessary to achieve and maintain hot shutdown remains free of fire 
damage. The licensee has determined that the alternate shutdown system 
does not meet these requirements because components in the alternate 
shutdown system were located in the same fire area as redundant 
shutdown instrumentation cable which did not meet the requirements of 
Section III.G.2 of Appendix R. The licensee has, therefore, requested 
exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, Section 
III.G.3, to allow an operator to enter the fire area to perform manual 
actions.
    Safe shutdown, during a postulated fire in the entryway tunnel, 
would be accomplished through use of the alternate safe shutdown 
system. Process monitoring information to support use of the alternate 
shutdown system is routed to the alternate safe shutdown locations 
through instrument isolation cabinets located in the upper electrical 
penetration area. These cabinets provide the operators with the ability 
to interrupt the normal signal paths routed to the central control room 
and reconfigure the instrument loops to provide instrument loop 
indication at the alternate safe shutdown panels located outside of the 
control room. The instrument loops cannot be remotely reconfigured, 
necessitating operator action in the fire affected area.
    The fire hazard incurred by the operator during this action is 
minimal for several reasons. Because of the glass and asbestos braid 
construction of the cables in these areas, fire is not expected to 
propagate along the cables to any significant degree. A postulated fire 
in the entryway would be detected and extinguished, through manual or 
automatic means, before the fire became extensive. Additionally, the 
distance from the fire to the cabinets is approximately 165 feet and, 
while in the fire affected area, an operator would not be in the 
immediate vicinity of the fire. Furthermore, the operator would not be 
in the affected area for more than a few minutes and would access the 
area via the primary auxiliary building, avoiding the vicinity of the 
fire. A smoke analysis has shown that the amount of smoke in the area 
would not inhibit the necessary operator actions. Therefore, the 
proposed exemption would not affect the licensee's ability to implement 
alternate safe shutdown procedures.
    Based on the considerations discussed above, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed exemption would not affect radiological 
plant effluents, nor result in any significant occupational exposure. 
In addition, the exemption does not affect nonradiological plan 
effluents and has no other environmental impact.
    Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological or nonradiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the Commission considered 
denial of the proposed action. 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. 
The alternative would also result in a significant expenditure of 
engineering and financial resources, without a significant safety 
benefit.

Alternate Use of Procedures

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the ``Final Environmental Statement for the 
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 3,'' dated February 
1975.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The Commission consulted with the State of New York regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental 
impact statement for the exemption under consideration.
    Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for exemption dated November 17, 1993, as supplemented 
September 6, 1994. This document is available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the White Plains Public 
Library, 100 Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of September 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael J. Case,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-I Division of Reactor Projects--
I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-23820 Filed 9-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M