[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64668-64671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-28498]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-247]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Indian Point Nuclear Generating 
Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-26, 
issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO or the licensee) for 
operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2), located 
in Westchester County, New York. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 
51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of 
no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would revise the existing, or current, 
Technical Specifications (TS) for IP2 in their entirety based on the 
guidance provided in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications 
for Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 2, dated April 2001, 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 application dated March 27, 2002, as supplemented by letters 
dated May 30, 2002; July 10, 2002; October 10, 2002; October 28, 2002; 
November 26, 2002; December 18, 2002; January 6, 2003; January 27, 
2003; February 26, 2003; April 8, 2003; May 19, 2003; June 23, 2003; 
June 26, 2003; July 15, 2003; August 6, 2003; September 11, 2003; 
October 8, 2003; and October 14, 2003.

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 
TSs. The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on Technical Specification 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants'' (52 FR 3788), contained 
proposed criteria for defining the scope of TSs. 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 TSs. 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 IP2, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) are 
in NUREG-1431, Revision 2. 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.
    The proposed changes to the current TS (CTS) are based on NUREG-
1431, Revision 2, and on guidance provided by the Commission in the 
Final Policy

[[Page 64669]]

Statement. The objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, 
reformat, and streamline the TSs (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 TSs. 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-1431, Revision 2, portions of the CTS were also used 
as the basis for the development of the IP2 ITS. Plant-specific issues 
(e.g., unique design features, requirements, and operating practices) 
were discussed with the licensee, and generic matters were discussed 
with Westinghouse and other OGs.
    The proposed changes to the CTS 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-
1431, Rev. 2, and does not involve technical changes to the ITS. The 
proposed changes include: (a) Providing the appropriate numbers, etc., 
for NUREG-1431 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-1431 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 TSs. 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 27, 2002, submittal, which is 
entitled, ``Application of NRC Selection Criteria Including the CTS to 
ITS Disposition and Relocation Matrix'' (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 TSs 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 TSs 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-1431, Revision 2 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-1431, Revision 2, thus providing a basis for the ITS, or if 
relaxation of the requirements in the ITS 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 different from the 
requirements in both the CTS and the STS NUREG-1431. These beyond scope 
issues to the conversion, listed in the order of the applicable ITS 
specification or section, as appropriate (from ITS 3.6.9 to ITS 3.8.7), 
are as follows:
    1. The licensee added ITS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
3.6.9--Isolation Valve Seal Water System to the proposed IP2 ITS. 
NUREG-1431 does not include an STS for this system, because very few 
plants have this kind of system. The CTS provides a base set of 
requirements, which the staff will use to evaluate the licensee's 
proposed change for parameters such as allowable out-of-service time 
and surveillance requirements (SRs).
    2. The licensee added ITS LCO 3.6.10--Weld Channel and Penetration 
Pressurization System (WC&PPS) to the proposed IP2 ITS. The WC&PPS is 
designed to continuously pressurize the space between selected 
containment isolation valves, containment piping penetration barriers, 
and most of the weld seam channels installed on the inside of the 
containment liner. Pressurization by the WC&PPS provides a means of 
monitoring the containment leakage of the affected barriers. WC&PPS 
pressure is maintained above Pa [atmospheric pressure], so 
the system may also reduce out leakage from the containment during an 
accident, although it is not credited for doing so. There are no 
regulatory requirements or guidance for this system. NUREG-1431 does 
not include an STS for this system, because very few plants have this 
kind of system.
    3. The licensee added ITS 3.7.2--Main Steam Isolation Valves 
(MSIVs) and Main Steam Check Valves (MSCVs) to the proposed IP2 ITS. 
CTS 3.4B allows all 4 MSIVs to be inoperable for up to 72 hours prior 
to requiring initiation of plant shutdown. The proposed ITS LCO 3.7.2, 
required action C.1, allows only one MSIV to be

[[Page 64670]]

inoperable for up to 72 hours prior to requiring initiation of a plant 
shutdown. If more than one MSIV is inoperable in Mode 1 (and not 
closed), ITS LCO 3.0.3 is immediately applicable and a plant shutdown 
must be initiated within one hour. Proposed ITS 3.7.2 deviates from STS 
3.7.2 which allows all four MSIVs to be inoperable for up to 72 hours 
prior to requiring initiation of plant shutdown.
    4. The licensee proposed ITS LCO 3.7.3 for Main Feedwater Isolation 
to add requirements for operability, allowable out of service times and 
SRs which are deviations from the Scope of STS conversion.
    5. The licensee proposed ITS LCO 3.7.8 of 72 hours allowed out of 
service time which is less restrictive (i.e., longer) than the STS 
allowed out of service time of 12 hours, without adopting NUREG-1431, 
STS LCO 3.7.8 Notes 1 and 2, for the service water pumps.
    6. The licensee proposed ITS LCO 3.8.1 to replace the current CTS 
3.7 and to require that onsite and offsite electrical power systems are 
operable in Modes 1, 2, 3, and 4. Current requirements of CTS 3.7 
specify that requirements for onsite and offsite electrical power 
systems are applicable only when the reactor is critical and, 
therefore, requires only that the reactor be made subcritical when 
requirements are not met. CTS 4.6 does not establish any requirements 
for the periodic verification of correct breaker alignment and 
indicated power availability for offsite circuits.
    7. The licensee proposed the following SRs for ITS LCO 3.8.3--
Diesel Fuel Oil and Starting Air:
    (a) ITS SR 3.8.3.1, requirement for verification regarding the 
emergency diesel generator fuel oil inventory in the fuel oil storage 
tanks, is relaxed.
    (b) Proposed ITS does not adopt STS SR 3.8.3.2 requirement for 
verification regarding the lube oil inventory; and
    (c) The licensee added new sections to specify a range of pressure 
limits and impose LCOs and SRs for the starting air receivers. CTS does 
not currently have these requirements.
    8. The licensee proposed ITS LCO 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating'' 
and associated ITS SR 3.8.4 which are less restrictive than CTS 3.7.B.5 
and CTS 3.7.B.6, CTS 3.7.B.5, and CTS 3.7.B.6 allow one of the four 
batteries to be inoperable for 24 hours if the associated charger is 
operable or allow one of the four chargers to be inoperable for 24 
hours if the associated battery is operable.
    9. The licensee originally proposed ITS LCO 3.8.6, which did not 
include a requirement to verify battery float current every seven days 
in accordance with STS 3.8.6, but required seven days with associated 
conditions. The original proposed ITS 3.8.6 was a deviation from STS 
3.8.6, which specified the seven-day interval requirement. However, the 
licensee later modified its proposed ITS 3.8.6 to include the seven-day 
SR.
    10. The licensee originally proposed ITS LCO 3.8.7, ``Inverter--
Operating,'' which limits the time the inverter may be inoperable to 
seven days in its March 27, 2002, submittal in lieu of 24 hours as 
recommended by NUREG-1431. The staff was concerned that the seven-day 
LCO was too long and also was not consistent with NUREG-1431. 
Subsequently, the licensee modified its proposed ITS LCO 3.8.7 to 
reduce the LCO from seven days to 24 hours.
    11. The licensee proposed ITS 5.5.11, ``Diesel Fuel Oil Testing 
Program,'' which is a deviation from STS 5.5.13. The current CTS and 
UFSAR do not have any requirements for testing diesel fuel oil. 
Proposed ITS 5.5.11 adds a new program, ``Diesel Fuel Oil Testing,'' to 
require that a diesel fuel oil testing program is maintained with 
specific TS requirements for acceptance criteria and testing frequency. 
IP2 design and licensing basis requires that each diesel generator (DG) 
has an onsite underground storage tank containing oil for 48 hours of 
minimum safeguards load and a DG fuel oil reserve with sufficient fuel 
to support an additional 5 days of operation. ITS 5.5.11 will establish 
separate fuel oil testing programs for onsite underground storage tanks 
and the DG fuel oil reserve tanks. The proposed ITS adds to the 
Administrative Control Section of the TS a new diesel fuel oil testing 
program. It also incorporates several editorial changes in order to 
make the ITS consistent with the STS. With a few exceptions, this 
program follows the requirements specified in the STS.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed conversion of 
the CTS to the ITS for IP2, 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 TSs. The increased 
clarity and understanding that these changes bring to the TSs are 
expected to improve the operators' control of IP2 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-
1431, Revision 2, 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 TSs 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-1431, Revision 2, 
have been reviewed by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the TSs 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 non-radiological 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 non-radiological plant 
effluents and has no other environmental impact. It does not increase 
any discharge limit for the plant. Therefore, there are no significant 
non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the

[[Page 64671]]

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 different resources 
than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement 
for IP2, dated September 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On September 25, 2002, the staff consulted with the New York State 
official, Ms. Alyse Peterson, of the New York Energy and Research 
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 NRC concludes 
that the proposed action 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 letter dated March 27, 2002, as supplemented by letters 
dated May 30, 2002; July 10, 2002; October 10, 2002; October 28, 2002; 
November 26, 2002; December 18, 2002; January 6, 2003; January 27, 
2003; February 26, 2003; April 8, 2003; May 19, 2003; June 23, 2003; 
June 26, 2003; July 15, 2003; August 6, 2003; September 11, 2003; 
October 8, 2003; and October 14, 2003. Documents may be examined, and/
or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located 
at One White Flint North Public File Area 01F21, 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 NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 5th day of November, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard Laufer,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate 1, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-28498 Filed 11-13-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P