[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13890-13892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7530]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13891]]


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-244]


Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power 
Plant; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
granting an exemption from Facility Operating License No. DRP-18, 
issued to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG&E or the 
licensee), for operation of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna), 
located in Wayne County, New York.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the granting of an exemption from Appendix K 
to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 
50), Paragraph I.D.3, ``Calculation of Reflood Rate for Pressurized 
Water Reactors,'' and Paragraph I.D.5, ``Refill and Reflood Heat 
Transfer for Pressurized Water Reactors.''
    The Ginna design relies on upper plenum injection (UPI) for the 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS) injection during the reflood phase 
of a large-break (LB) loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). UPI is therefore 
not a lower-flooding design, and the prescriptions in Paragraphs I.D.3 
and I.D.5 prescriptions do not apply. The evaluation model (EM) 
described in WCAP-10924-P, Volume 1, Revision 1, Addendum 4, 
``Westinghouse UPI Model Improvements,'' dated August 1990 is an 
empirically verified model, approved by the staff, and is more directly 
applicable to top-flooding situations at Ginna that satisfy the intent 
of Appendix K, Paragraphs I.D.3 and I.D.5.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's exemption 
request dated November 5, 1992, as supplemented by letter dated June 
19, 1995.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The licensee has requested the proposed action to support 
conversion from a 12-month fuel cycle to an 18-month fuel cycle (Cycle 
26), which is scheduled to begin with the startup of the plant from the 
1996 refueling outage on May 31, 1996. During Cycle 26, the plant will 
operate with different thermal-hydraulic characteristics and neutron 
(power) distribution in the core. Higher power distribution limits and 
larger peaking factors require an update of an ECCS EM that is 
acceptable to the staff and includes the effects of UPI. The licensee's 
submittal of November 5, 1992, as supplemented on June 19, 1995, 
references the EM used to perform an LB LOCA analysis for plants with 
UPI are described in WCAP-10924-P, Volume 1, Revision 1, Addendum 4, 
and gives the technical bases for the requested exemption for Ginna.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the proposed exemption would allow the licensee to 
use the EM that is described in WCAP-10924-P, Volume 1, Revision 1, 
Addendum 4, and has been approved by the staff. The staff has concluded 
that the empirically verified EM model is more directly applicable to 
top-flooding situations at Ginna, and thus satisfies the intent of 
Appendix K, Paragraphs I.D.3 and I.D.5.
    The exemption will not result in any changes to the facility or the 
environment.
    The R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant reactor is designed to withstand the 
effects caused by a loss-of-coolant accident including the double ended 
severance of the largest pipe in the reactor coolant system. The 
reactor core and internals together with the safety injection system 
are designed so that the reactor can be safely shut down, the essential 
heat transfer geometry of the core preserved following the accident, 
and the long-term coolability maintained. The ECCS is designed to meet 
acceptance criteria which preclude fission product release to the 
environment in excess of the guideline values of 10 CFR Part 100. The 
acceptance criteria for the LOCA, as prescribed in 10 CFR 50.46, are
    (1) The calculated peak fuel element cladding temperature is below 
the limit of 2200  deg.F,
    (2) The cladding temperature transient is terminated at a time when 
the core geometry is still amenable to cooling. The localized cladding 
oxidation of 17% are not exceeded during or after quenching,
    (3) The amount of hydrogen generated by fuel element cladding that 
reacts chemically with water or steam does not exceed an amount 
corresponding to interaction of 1% of the total amount of Zircaloy in 
the reactor,
    (4) The core remains amenable to cooling during and after the 
break, and
    (5) The core temperature is reduced and decay heat is removed for 
an extended period of time, as required by the long-lived radioactivity 
remaining in the core.
    These criteria were established to provide significant margin in 
ECCS performance following a LOCA. The ECCS is designed to meet 
acceptance criteria even when operating with the most severe single 
failure.
    The anticipated impact of the plant on the environment was 
evaluated in the Staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) dated 
December 1973. Subsequently, in preparation for the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board's (ASLB) hearing on the conversion of Provisional 
Operating License No. DPR-18 for the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant to 
a Full-Term Operating License, the NRC staff performed an Environmental 
Evaluation (EE) dated June 17, 1983, of the original FES. The staff EE 
did not identify any significant new environmental impacts or any 
significant changes from those identified previously in the FES.
    The offsite exposure from releases due to postulated design basis 
accidents has been analyzed by the licensee in the RG&E Ginna Nuclear 
Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analyses Report (UFSAR). The results 
of these analyses were within the bounds of 10 CFR Part 100 and 
considered (1) various accidents, including loss-of-coolant accidents; 
(2) the radioactivity release calculated for each accident; (3) the 
assumed meteorological conditions; and (4) population distribution 
versus distance from the plant. The staff has concluded that neither 
the types of accidents nor the calculated radioactivity releases will 
change due to the proposed action. The site meteorology as defined in 
the UFSAR is essentially a constant. One parameter that would be 
dependent on the proposed action is the population size and 
distribution as it could vary with time; however, the projected 
increase in population densities, as addressed in the FES and EE, are 
minimal through the year 2009 and the proposed action will not 
significantly increase doses to the public. Due to design conservatism, 
maintenance and surveillance programs, inspection programs and the 
plant Technical Specifications, operation for the remaining life of the 
plant consistent with the proposed action will have no significant 
environmental impact.
    The proposed action will not 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 the allowable individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes 
that no significant radiological environmental impacts are associated 
with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action involves features located entirely within the restricted area as 
defined in

[[Page 13892]]
10 CFR Part 20. It does not, however, affect nonradiological plant 
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the staff 
concludes that no significant nonradiological environmental impacts are 
associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded that no measurable environmental 
impacts are associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with 
equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an 
alternative to the proposed action, the staff 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.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the R.E. 
Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 11, 1995, the staff 
consulted with New York State official F. William Valentino, State 
Liaison Officer of the New York Energy, Research, and Development 
Authority, 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 staff concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, it has determined that 
it will not prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated November 5, 1992, as supplemented by letter 
dated June 19, 1995, both of which are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room 
located at the Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, 
New York.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22th day of March 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Susan Frant Shankman,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-7530 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P