ML17251A309
| ML17251A309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 10/04/1988 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17251A310 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810100196 | |
| Download: ML17251A309 (36) | |
Text
7590-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of ROCHESTER GAS 5 ELECTRIC CORPORATION Docket No. 50-P44
( R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant)
EXEMPTION Rochester Gas A Electric Company
<the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-18, which authorizes operation of the R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (the facility).
The license provides, among other things, that it is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect.
The facility is a pressurized water reactor at the licensee's site in located in Wayne County, New York.
On August 5, 1987, the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a final rule amending 10 CFR 50.54(w).
The rule increased the amount of on-site property damage insurance required to be carried by NRC's power reactor licensees.
The rule also required these licensees to obtain by October 4, 1988 insurance policies that prioritized insurance proceeds for stabilization and decontamination after an accident and provided for payment of proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds for decontamination and cleanup before any other purpose.
Subsequent to publication of the rule, the NRC has been informed by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that, despite a,good faith effort to obtain trustees required by the rule, the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions will not be able to be incorporated into policies by the time required in',the"rule.
In response to these comments and related petitions for rulemaking, 881 QiOOi9b 881004 PDR ADOCK 05000244~ii Pl PNU
the Commission has proposed a revision of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) extending the implementation schedule for 18 months (53 FR 36338, September 19, 1988).
- However, because it is unlikely that this rulemaking action will be completed by October 4, 1988, the Commission is issuing a temporary exemption from the reauirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i ) until completion of the pending rulemaking extending the implementation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i), but not later than April 1, 1989.
Upon completion of such rulemaking, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 12, "The Commission
- may, upon application bv any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of I 10 CFR Part 501, which are... Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and securitv."
Further, Section 50.12(a)(2) provides inter alia, "The Commission wil'I not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present.
Special circumstances are present whenever... (v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation."
Despite a good faith effort to comply with the provisions of the rule, insurers providing property damage insurance for nuclear power facilities and licensees insured by such insurers have not been able to comply with the regulation and the exemption provides only temporary relief from the applicable regulation.
As noted by the Commission in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding that delaying for a reasonable time the implementation of the stabilization and decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of Section 50.54(w) will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
First, during the period of
- delay, the licensee will still be required to carry
$ 1.06 billion insurance.
~
'his is a substantial amount of coverage that provides a significant financial cushion to licensees to decontaminate and clean up after an accident even without the prioritization and trusteeship provisions.
- Second, nearly 75K of the required coverage is already prioritized under the decontamination liability and excess property insurance language of the Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited-II policies.
Finally, there is.only an extremely small probability of a serious accident occurring during the exemption period.
Even if a serious accident giving rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur, NRC would be l'ble to take appropriate enforcement action to assure adequate cleanup to protect public health and safety and the environment.
IV.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a),
that (I) a temporary exemption as described in Section III. is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security and (2) in this case, special circumstances are present as described in Section III.
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the following exemption:
Rochester Gas 5 Electric Corporation is exempt from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) until the completion of the pending rulemaking extending the implementation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i),
but not later than April I, 1989.
Upon completion of such rulemaking the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not result in any significant environmental impact (53 FR 38996).
This exemption is effective upon issu nce.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this f day of QD&, 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/s Steven A. Varga, ivision Director Division of Reactor Projects, I/II Office,of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PDI MRus rook
/h /88 P j-3 PDI-3 hrhle:dig
'Mess an lo/] /88 lO/f /88 DIA BBoger P/////88 RP SV r 88
vt, ~
e I
April 17, 1991 II Docket No. 50-244 Dr. Robert C. Mecredy Vice President, Ginna Nuclear Production Rochester Gas It Electric Corporation 89 East Avenue Rochester, New York 14649
Dear Dr. Mecredy:
, DISTRIBUTION
.~P SVarga MRushbrook EJordan GPA/PA NRC 5 LPDRs IOCalvo'. '-
AJohnson RWessman OGC (3Rogge."'-~ Region I
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (TAC NO. 67427)
Enclosed is a copy of an Environmental Assessment relating to your October 5, 1989 application for a license amendment for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, as supplemented by letters dated March 28, December 6, 1990, and March 8, 1991.
The proposed amendment would change the expiration date of Facility Operating License DPR-18 from April 25, 2006 to September 18, 2009.
The original copy of the Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Sig inficant Impact, has been forwarded to the Office of the Federal
~Re ister for publication.
Sincerely,
/s/ Allen R. Johnson Allen R. Johnson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Environmental Assessment Notice cc w/enclosure:
See next page
- See previous concurrence DFE: EA:POI-Sw: ihl:P DI-S*
NAME
- MRu ok
- AJohnson:dr DATE:/. /J /91:4/[q/91 F
RKt.'MD COPY Document Name:
EA67427 GC
- Coleen Woodhead
- 4/1/91 PD:P I-3 RWe s
an g/r yy/gI
ol
Dr. Robert C. t~iecredy Ginra CC:
Thomas A. Voslak, Senior Resident Inspector R.E. Girra Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1503 Lake Road
- Ontario, New York 14519 Regional Administrator, Region I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 tis. Donna Ross Division of Policy Analysis 5 Planning New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Charlie Donaldson, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General flew York Department of Lav'20 Broadway New York, Nev, York 10271 Nicholas S.
Reynolds Winston 5 Strawn 1400 L St.
H.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN EXPIRATION DATE OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DPR-18 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION FOR THE GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-244 7590-0l INTRODUCTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is currently licensed for operation (DPR-18) for 40 years commencing with the issuance of the Construction Permit (April 25, 1966).
A Provisional Operating License was issued on September 19, 1969.
A Full Term Operating License was issued on December 10, 1984.
The license expires on April 2'., 2006.
By letter dated October 5, 1989 and as supplemented on Yiarch 28, December 6, 1990, and harch 8, 1991, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (RG8 E) requested that the license expiration date, be extended to September 18, 2009 or 40 years after the date of issuance of the Provisional Operating License.
A license term of 40 years from the date of issuance of the Provisional Operating License is permitted by NRC regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.51, and the basis for granting this request has been established by the Commission's current policy in granting operating licenses to new plants.
Commission approva,l of the proposed amendment would be consistent with recent NRC actions.
NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The granting of this request would allow the licensee to operate the plant for approximately three years and five months beyond the current license expir-ation date, thus recapturing the construction period.
This extension would also
1 1
permit the plant to operate for the full forty year design basis lifetime, consistent with previously stated Commission policy (Memorandum dated August 16, 1982, from William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations, to the Commissioners) and as evidenced by the issuance of over 30 similar extensions to other licensees.
Without issuance of the proposed license amendment, Ginna Nuclear Power Plant would be shut down at the expiration of the current license on April 25, 2006.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 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 Environ-mental Evaluation (EE) dated June 17, 1983, of the original FES.
The staff EE did not lead to the identification of any significant new environmental impacts or any significant changes from those identified previously in the FES.
Since that time its impact on the environment has been observed and recorded.
In order to arrive at a finding on the acceptability of the plant' impact on the environment the following considerations will be evaluated in this assessment:
1.
Radiological Impacts of the Hypothetical Design Basis Accident 2.
Radiological Impacts of Annual Releases 3.
Environmental Impact of Uranium Fuel Cycle 4.
Non-Radiological Impacts Plant Yodifications 6.
Conclusion on Environmental Impacts.
Each of these considerations is sequentially discussed below:
l.
~RCh1 i
1~I ~
f hotly I
i 1.0 i
B i
A id (DBA)
The offsite exposure from releases due to postulated accidents has been analyzed by the licensee in the RGLE 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 thus acceptable.
This type of analysis is a
function of four parameters:
(1) the types of accidents postulated; (2) the radioactivity release calculated for each accident; (3) the assumed meteoro-logical conditions; and (4) population distribution versus distance from the plant.
The staff has concluded that neither the types of accidents nor the I
calculated radioactivity releases will change through the proposed amendment term.
Furthermore, the site meteorology as defined in the UFSAP, is essentially a constant and consideration herein is therefore unwarranted.
Thus, the one parameter that is dependent on the proposed license amendment is the population size and distribution as it could vary with time.
The RGIIE October 1989 review of the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant proiected population changes through the year 2009, compared recent population densities with the 1970 U.S.
Census Bureau statistics used in the FES.
RGSE in their review of the census statistics obtained 1984 population data for the thirteen county area included within a 50 mile radius of the plant.
Their review indicated that the population in this area had increased by only three percent overall since 1970.
Since this increase is substantially below any RGIIE estimates for 1984, the actual population should be less than originally estimated in the FES.
The 1980 population for a two mile radius around the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is 1078 people.
This population is estimated to increase to 1390 by the year 2015 based on the 1980-1985 population growth rate for Vayne County.
Population centers with populations greater than 25,000 people, within the 50 mile radius of the plant, include Monroe County with the city of Rochester (Rochester 1984 population:
243,000),
and the City of Auburn, New York.
These are identified below, along with population proiections for the year 2015 based on the 1970-1980 population orowth rates for these areas.
~Po ulation Center Monroe County Auburn, N.Y.
~Po ul ation 1984 2015 20 mi h'SM 711,200 742,100 Location 45 mi ESE 32,000 35,000 None of the projected changes in population beteen the years 2006 and 2009, the aoded term of the proposed license amendment, will significantly impact any accident analysis, previously calculated.
Furthermore, the current exclusion area
- boundary, low population zone and nearest population center distances are not likely to be significantly changed through the amendment term.
Accordingly, we conclude that the proposed license amendment will not significantly change previous conclusions on the potential environmental effects of offsite releases from postulated accidents.
b.
Land Use The RGItE October 5, 1989 review of the R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant land-use changes concluded that no significant land-use changes are expected through the year 2009.
h'hile some construction upgrades with regards to the condensate polisher building have been implemented at the Ginna plant since the NRC EE.
The plant boundaries and acreage have not changed.
None of the new facilities will result in any additional'mpact upon local land use or terrestrial ecosystems and therefore the impacts described in the FES remain valid.
The NRC staff stated in their proposed no significant hazards considerations determination
{53 FR 9513) dated triarch c 3, 1988, that the change in expiration date te September 18, 2009 is consistent with current NRC policy and the originally engineered design life of the plant, i.e., 40-years of operation.
Due to design conservatism, maintenance and surveillance
- programs, inspection programs and the Plant Technical Specifications, the proposed additional three years and five months of operation will have no significant impact on safety.
That is, regardless of the age of the plant, the above mentioned programs and Technical Specifications ensure that components, systems and structures will be refurbished or replaced to maintain their requisite safety function.
PaCiological Impacts of Annual Releases a.
Onsite Doses RGSE maintains ar. aggressive commitment to as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) exposures and has implemented a successful program under the 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, guidelines.'oth management and an experienced plant radiation protection support group are committed to this program which receives constant attention through the Corporate ALARA Committee.
The licensee's continued implementation of its ALARA program anc'heir performance is documented by NRC reports for each Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) period.
RG&E concludes that their projected exposures are not expected to exceed an annual average personnel dose of 385 man-rem, as documented, during the last seven years as follows:
Year Total Dose (man-rem) 1984 370 1985 410 1986 363 1987 330 1988 269 1989 605*
1990 350
- higher occupational radiation exposure incurred to meet the 10-year Inservice Inspection
( ISI) requirements during an extended refueling outage.
The PG&E annual average personnel dose of 385 man-rem is below the U.S.
industry average of 393 rran-rem for pressurized water reactors for this same period.
The low average dose rates achieved by RG&E were accomplished despite an early history of fuel leakage and a recent history of increased steam generator inspection and repair (sleeving and plugging).
Dose rates are stable and are not expected to increase significantly in the future.
A decrease is possible due to recently developed dilute chemical decontamination techniques.
In addition to operational methods and procedures which are employed to reduce public and occupational
- doses, many modifications have been made to the plant to reduce effluents, radwaste shipments and personnel exposure.
t1ajor changes included installation of charcoal filters in the auxiliary building ventilation
- system, the addition of polishing demineralizers for the liquid radwaste system and the use of a supercompactor
to reduce the number of radwaste shipments.
Installation of a reactor head shield and use of robotic equipment for steam generator eddy current testing and sleeving/plugging repair have reduced occupational doses.
The Ginna Nuclear Power Plant spent fuel storage pool has been reracked to maximum capacity, but will not provide adequate storage to the end of the current licensed operating term of 2006.
The current estimate would limit operation of the Ginna plant to the March 1999 Cycle 28 refueling outage, at which time the spent fuel storage pool would accommodate 854 spent fuel assemblies without full core discharge capability.
The licensee has fully evaluated the Ginna plant spent fuel storage pool capabilities as documented in an Empire State Electric Energy Pesearch Corporation (ESEERCO)
Report entitled "Spent Nuclear Fuel Consolidation/Characterization, December 1989."
A spent fuel rod consolidation process is being explored for future use by RGSE along with a demonstration program.
Fuel rod consolidation would provide for operation beyond the year 2009 with full core discharge capability.
If Federal repositories are not available at that point in time, alternate methods of onsite storage would be employed.
Durino the proposed amendment term, it is assumed that RG&E will operate with an approximate 12-month-long fuel cycle.
This would result in three refueling outages during the proposed amendment term with projected exposures of approximately 350 man-rem per year during the requested extension period.
The expected exposures for the plant are in accordance with 10 CFR 20 and Regulatory Guide 8.8 and are thus acceptable.
b.
Offsite Doses Appendix I guidelines on ALARA were briefly discussed above in regard to'onsite doses;
- however, these guidelines a'iso apply to releases that could cause offsite doses.
In addition, routine releases to the environment are governed by 10 CFR 20.1(c), which states that such releases should be as low as reasonably achievable.
Appendix I is more explicit in that it establishes radioactive design/dose objectives for liquid and oaseous offsite releases including iodine/particulate radionuclides.
Releases of radioactive liquid and gaseous wastes from Ginna have remained among the lowest of U.S. generating plants during the past ten years.
Volume of radwaste shipped is also among the lowest.
The following table summarizes the most recent-Ginna offsite radiation dose assessment for the calendar years of 1988 and 1989.
These annual offsite doses are substantially lower than those predicted in the FES..
Gaseous Release Calculated Dose Based on Release Date 10 CFR 50 Appendix I Guidelines per Unit
~er ear - Allowed Maximum Site Boundary Gamma Air Dose (mrad)
Maximum Site Boundary Beta Air Dose (mrad) 1988 0.019 0.011 1989 0.016 0.017 10 20 Total Maximum Offsite Dose to any Organ (mrem)
~Li aid Releases 0.019 Oe39 15 Total Maximum Offs ite Whole Body Dose (mrem) 0.011 2.4E-05 Total Maximum Offsite Organ Dose (mrem) 0.010 8.5E-05 10 There have been no land use changes which have significantly affected offsite dose calculations for the critical receptor as provided below.
This 1989 data is typical and is expected to be typical of dose assessments through 2009.
Critical Rece tor for 1989 Sector Distance Pathway Age Group Thyroid Dose ESE 670 meters Ground, Inhalation, Vegetation Child 0.39 mrem Based on the continued operation of the plant's existing liquid and gaseous radwaste
- systems, the staff concludes that the anticipated offsite doses during the periods covered by the proposed license amendment would remain a fraction of the 10 CFP, 50, Appendix I limits.
The staff concludes that the releases from the Ginna plant, both onsite and offsite, have remained within the bounds of the FES and have complied with the applicable portions of 10 CFR 20 and 50 as discussed above.
As a consequence, the staff would expect releases during the proposed license e> tension period tn remain within these bounds.
1 3.
Environmental Impact of the Uranium Fuel Cycle - Trans ortation of Fuel and Waste The Ginna reactor contains 121 fuel assemblies.
The FES for Ginna assumed that 32 out of IPI fuel assemblies (approximately one-quarter) would be replaced during annual refueling outages.
- However, no estimate of the total number of fuel assemblies to be used during the 40-year operating plant life was made in the FES.
An estimate can be made however, if one quarter of the fuel is expected to be replaced every year.
The estimated total number
of fuel assemblies replaced during a 40-year operating life would be 1311 including a full core discharge is as follows:
DATE BEFORE REFUELING
~(e.. before core discharge)
March 1991 March 1992 thru March 2008 (32 fuel assem x 17 yrs)
SPENT FUEL ASSEMBLIES 598 (currently stored) 544 Sept 2009 Total Sept 2009 (before full core discharge)
Plus full core discharge Total number of fuel assemblies replaced during a 40-year operating life (estimate) 48 121 1311 The environmental
- impacts, both radiological and non-radiological, attributable to transportation of fuel and waste from the plant site with respect to normal conditions of transport and possible accidents in transport have been assess<<d in the FES.
Some uporades to the waste processing and shipment have changed since the December 1973 FES.
In total, Ginna now delivers by truck ar average of 5000 cu. ft. with a content of 200 curies of waste to approved burial disposal sites each year, which is slightly conservative in comparison to the -values reported in the FES.
The assessments of (1) the FES (December 1973); (2) the NRC Staff Environmental Evaluation (June 1983);
and (3) the changes to the FES described
- above, represent the contribution of such transportation to annual environmental costs including dose per year to exposed transportation workers and to the general public.
These annual environmental
- costs, which are displayed in Table S-4 of the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR Part 51.52, would not be changed by the extended period of operation.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that there are no significant changes in the environmental impact related to the uranium fuel cycle due to the proposed extended operation of Ginna.
The major non-radiological impact of the plant on the environment is through the operation of the plant's circulating cooling water system (CCWS).
The Ginna CCWS is regulated by the Hew York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permitting Program which is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated program.
The SPDES Permitting Program authorizes and monitors dis-charges to water bodies to ensure the protection of the environment from chemical, 1
- physical, and biological degradation.
The SPDES Permitting Program requirements serve to protect fish and other organisms in Lake Ontario and migratory wildlife that use the lake and land from the impacts of plant operation.
In addition, the SPDES Permitting Program insures satisfaction of the pertinent requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act and the State of New York water quality standards.
There were several issues outstanding at the time of the FES, which were evaluated and addressed during the NRC EE, as follows:
(I) the water quality issue of fish impingement on the cooling water intake screens; (2) thermal effects to biota in the receiving water; (3) chlorine releases to the receiving water; (4) compliance with thermal standards; (5) the terrestrial issue of the presence of endangered and threatened species; (6) land use near-the plant; (7) terrestrial ecology; and (8) construction of transmission right-of-ways.
The resolution of these
- issues, as evaluated by the NRC staff in the EE, was to require the licensee to monitor the environment during operation and to propose mitigation plans as necessitated by the resulting data.
In Yay 1985 the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued SPDES Permit No.
NY-000 0493 for the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, with a reouired renewal on a five year basis.
All water quality issues pertaining to chemical discharges, discharge flows, thermal discharge, and biological impacts, are under the jurisdiction of this permit.
Additionally, the SPDES Permitting Program authorizes variances for the existing cooling water intake and discharge systems at the Ginna plant pursuant to Sections 316(a) and (b) of the Clean Ltater Act.
Since the NRC EE, a significant change has occurred in the circulating cooling water system description i lows to a more accurate total daily discharge of 490 million gallons per day from the previous 576 million gallons per day.
This change was recognized in 1985 and is based on recalculated heat rejection rates for the Ginna Station.
Because the SPDES Permit was issued subsequent to the FES and NRC EE the non-radiological impacts continue to be evaluated in the SPDES Permitting Program process.
Additionally reports related to the aquatic ecological impacts of Ginna Nuclear Power Plant operation have been issued.
The following list of selected aquatic ecological reports prepared for the Ginna plant that have since been issued.
RGSE REPORT NO.
TITLE 8-13-289 8-13-290 8-13-293 B-13-328 1977-1981 Entrainment Program Summary Report, Ginna Nuclear Power Station, 1985.
1978-1983 Fish Program Summary Report, Ginna Nuclear Power Station, 1986.
Ginna Nuclear Power Station, Impingement Program Plan of Study, 1985.
Fish Impingement
- Program, 1982 through 1986 Analysis
- Report, Ginna Nuclear Power Station, 1987.
The impacts of the plant on the lake and" environment have been within the predictions of the
- FES, and have remained stable during plant operation except for the benevolent effect of diminished heat rejection.
The licensee continues to monitor the non-radiological impacts under the terms of the Operating License requirements and SPDES Permitting Program.
5.
Plant Hodifications Since the FES and the NRC EE a number of modifications have been made to the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant and surrounding plant facilities.
These modifications 1) had the effect of improving the reliability and safety of the plant; and,2) reducing the environmental impact of plant operation.
Significant improvements and upgrades, responsive to regulatory requirements and guidance, are described in the R.E.
Ginna Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USFAR), Revision 6,,
December 16, ]990.
Hodifications made to the Ginna plant, without prior Commission approval, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59',
"Changes, Tests and Experimer ts," are provided by an annual report to the NRC.
Hodifications requiring prior NRC approval are implemented in timely fashion after an appropriate NRC review and issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
No Ginna plant modifications were found to affect or impact the conclusions of the FES or the NRC EE.
6.
Conclusion of Environmental I~m acts Based on the above, we conclude that the proposed extension will not have any significant impact on the environment.
ALTERNATE TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The alternate to the proposed license extension would be to deny the application.
This would require the Ginna plant to be shut down upon expiration of the current operating license.
In the FES and EE the NRC staff concluded that no alternative means of power generation offers a better balance to the environmental and economic costs and benefits than the option of the continued operation, of the Ginna plant.
A benefit-cost analysis is presented in paragraph 7.1 of the NRC EE.
In summary, the cost-benefit advantage of Ginna compared to alternate electrical power generating capacity improves with the extended plant lifetime.
ALTERNATE USE OF RESOURCE This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the FES and EE in relation to the operation of the plant.
AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONTACTED None.
BASIS ANl'ONCLUSION FOP VGT PREPARING AN ENVIRONYENTAL I/1PACT STATEMENT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact stat<<mert for the proposeo action.
The conclusions of the FES and EE remain valid and operation of the plant has demonstrated that its impact on the environment has been within the bounds predicted.
The staff has reviewed the proposed license amendment relative to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.
Based on this assessment, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological or non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed action and that the issuance of the proposed license amendment will
. ~
have no significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.31, an environmental impact statement need not be prepared for this action.
Dated at Rockvi lie, Naryland this ay of 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t1orton B. Fairti le, Acting Director Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II
f fd,R REgff Wp,
+
0 op f
~c
+w*w+
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Nl
)
UNITE STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 April 16, 1991 Sholly Coordinator Allen Johnson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II
~
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BIWEEKLY FR NOTICE - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING
- LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NO. 79831)
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation~
Docket No.
50-2~44 R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Wayne County~
New York f d~ fd 11, 11
~di f
d 1
11 1
1 d
d 1d Technical Specifications to reflect a change and an addition to Tables 3.5-5 and 4.1-5 concerning radiation monitors in the service water line discharges from the spent fuel pool heat exchangers.
f 1
d fd fff 1
d fd 1
d 1
1:
1 required by 10 CFR 50.91(a),
the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, these changes to the Technical Specifications have been evaluated to determine if the operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would:
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;, or 2'.
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated; or 3.
involve a significant reduction in a margin of.'afety.
These proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident or create a
new or different type of accident, and there is no reduction in th'e margin of safety for any particular Technical Specification, since these are administrative changes only.
Therefore, Rochester Gas and Electric submits that the issues associated with this Amendment request are outside the criteria of 10 CFR 50.91; and a no significant hazards finding is warranted.
Sholly Coordinator April 16, 1991 The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
- and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room location:
Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610 f li:Mill E.Ry Id,Bitp,li 0&I 1400 Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005 NRC Project Director:
Richard Wessman Original signed by Allen Johnson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION: Docket File, PDI-3/ rf, AJohnson, HRushbrook,
- OGC, RWessman OFC:PDI-3 LA Pgg:PDI-3/PN Y
NAME s
o
. Johnson:
DATE '91 QD f['/A/91 0
ICIAL R CORD COPY
- PD I-3 D I RI
- RWessm
- Aiib/91 Document Name:
GINNA SHOLLY TAC N0.79831
1
~
Eg
~ 4 t '
e p,it "~CO w~y(P 0
co j! e ip ehO
+sb*W+
0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 April 9, 1991 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Sholly Coordinator FROM:
SUBJECT:
Allen Johnson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BIWEEKLY FR NOTICE - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING
- LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMII'IATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NO. 79829)
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation~
Docket No. 50-244~
R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Wayne County~
New York Date of amendment~re uest:
February 15, 1991
~Descri tion of amendment request:
The proposed amendment mould modify the method of locking open motor operated valve 856, the refueling water storage tank (RWST) delivery valve, when the Reactor Coolant System temperature is at or above 350'F.
This amendment will be reviewed with respect to a loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination:
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a),
the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
The proposed change does not involve a significant change in the probabi lity or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, because the proposed modification does not degrade the capability of any safety system to perform its function.
The open position of valve MOV-856 is assured through the key lock switch arrangement.
Emergency core cooling functions during the injection phase of a LOCA would be unaffected since the valve is designed to fail as is (OPEN position).
Prior to initiation of the recirculation phase of a LOCA, the proposed modification will allow operation of the valve from the control room to isolate the RWST.
Therefore, a decrease in the radiological risk to personnel is achieved through elimination of a mandatory entry into a radiologically controlled area to unlock and close the breaker for the valve.
This mandatory entry would also be eliminated when isolating the RWST from the reactor coolant system prior to placing the residual heat removal system into operation for plant cooldown.
mjt'FKKcRVHl Clpv QL4!ID~OV9$
c<'
Sholly Coordinator April 9, 1991 The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any previously evaluated, because the proposed modification involves a change to the method of locking open the motor operated valve.
No new safety functions will be provided and no new failure modes were identified.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety, because the safety function of the valve to be maintained in the OPEN position will continue to be achieved and be required by the plant Technical Specifications.
The proposed change will add control of the valve'rom the control room to achieve the CLOSE safety function to isolate the RWST.
Hence, plant operability will be increased.
Therefore, Rochester Gas and Electric submits that the issues associated with this Amendment request are outside the criteria of 10 CFR 50.91 and a no significant hazards finding is warranted.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
- and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Local Public Document Room Location:
Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, New York 14610 Attorne for licensee:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Bishop, Winston 5 Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20005 NRC Project Director:
Richard Wessman Original signed by Allen Johnson, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Distribution:
Docket File 50-244 PDI-3 Reading OGC AJohnson MRushbrook Sholly Coordinator NAME DATE ook
- AChu
- AJohnson
~ \\
0
~ 0
~
/91:Q/ /91: A./ Q/91 FF ~EKRD COPY Document Name:
GINNA SHOLLY 79829 PD:,P
- Rb s
n
< /
/91
r 4
I g
1 Hr~
li~,