[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