ML20217G754
| ML20217G754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/01/1999 |
| From: | Lohaus P NRC OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS (OSP) |
| To: | GENERAL |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217G757 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9910210347 | |
| Download: ML20217G754 (15) | |
Text
L . ..
,,, n
, OCT -1 ings L
- t. s STATE LIAISON OFFICERS 3 l
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM EVALUATION MODELS
.The United States Nuclear R9gulatory Commission (NRC) has published in the Federal Reaister the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50. The amendment, if adopted, would allow licensees of nuclear power plants for which an operating
. license has been granted to justify the assumed reactor power used in emergency core cooling system analyses. The current rule requires that the analyses use 102 percent of the licensed power level, therefore, the change will provide reactor licensees an option to reduce the assumed power level. The amendment resulted from the prospect of multiple requests for exemptions from the existing rule by nuclear power plant licensees seeking a reduction in the assumed power level for analysis. The proposed action would allow interested licensees to
- pursue small, but cost-beneficial, power uprates and would reduce unnecessary regulatory
. burden without compromising the margin of safety for their facilities.
m . Also enclosed is an Environmental Assessment (EA) that has been prepared in support of this proposed rule.- The conclusion of the EA is the Commission's finding that no significant
- environmental mpact will result from the proposed rule. The EA and Federal Reaister notice
! are provided for your review and comment. If you have any comments on the rule and its
~ environmentalimpact, please send them by December 15,1999. Comments received after this
' date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure
. consideration only for comments received during the comment period.
-You can use the following methods to transmit your comments: (1) mail your written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington l DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; (2) fax your comments to (301) 415-1672; or (3) transmit .
your comments electronically to the NRC's interactive rulemaking Website, "Rulemaking Forum," through the NRC home page (http://ruleforu'm.llnl. gov).
Original 8ioned@
, PAULH.LCHAU5.
- Paul H. Lohaus, Director
- Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
1 As stated
?
I
)
Distnbution- _ y mmm i DlR RF (9-201)' l DCD (SP03)< \ .;
. DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SCDtstatosletter.wpd 1 T'seestvo e ces r of this document, Indicate in the bou: "C" = Col M ettachment/encio Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" a No copy j OFFICE $90SP l @JD /l l { M l- l l l
NAME' SCDroggitis:gd FCottb i [ PHLbliads '
g; 10/l /99 "
W M9- 10/ /99
."- OSP FILE CODE:.SP 64 9910210347 991001 7h L
3 PDR STPRO gk.. hf [jg-ppg g
E J3
{
Jueg g 1 UNITED STATES
,j l
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l % 'e WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 0001 October 1, 1999 STATE LIAISON OFFICERS
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTEM EVALUATION MODELS l The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published in the Federal Reaister the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50. The l amendment, if adopted, would allow licensees of nuclear power plants for which an operating license has been granted to justify the assumed reactor power used in emergency core cooling system analyses. The current rule requires that the analyses use 102 percent of the licensed power level, tnerefore, the change will provide reactor licensees an option to reduce the
. assumed power level. The amendment resulted from the prospect of multiple requests for '
exemptions from the existing rule by nuclear power plant licensees seeking a reduction in the assumed power level for analycis. The proposed action would allow interested licensees to pursue small, but cost-beneficial, power uprates and would reduce unnecessary regulatory burden without compromising the margin of safety for their facilities.
Also enclosed is an Environmental Assessment (EA) that has been prepared in support of this
! proposed rule. The conclusion of the EA is the Commission's finding that no significant l l environmentalimpact will result from the proposed rule. The EA and Federal Reaister notice !
are provided for your review and comment. If you have any comments on the rule and its environmentalimpact, please send them by December 15,1999. . Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received during the comment period.
l~
You can use the following methods to transmit your comments: (1) mail your written comments toi Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff; (2) fax your comments to (301) 415-1672; or (3) transmit your comments electronically to the NRC's interactive rulemaking Website, "Rulemaking Forum," through the NRC home page (http:// rut rum.llnl. gov).
n h , I
\ W.i W Paul H. Lohaus, Director Office of State Programs
Enclosures:
As stated
53270 Proposed Rules r + i a si -
Vol. 64. No.190 Friday. October 1.1999 1
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER established by NRC for this rulemaking power in their ECCS analyses where contains notices to the public of the proposed (see the discussion under Electronic justified. ,
issuance of rules and regulations. The Access in the Supplementary purpose of these notices is to give interested Several licensees have expressed l l
persons an opportunity to participate in the information section). Obtain single interest in using updated feedwater flow aking prior to the adoption of the final copies of the environmental asseswent measurement technology discussed later and the regulatory analysis from uw in " Calorimetric Uncertainty and NRC contact given below. Feedwater Flow Measurement" as a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. basis for seeking exemptions from the NUCLEAR REGULATORY Joseph E. Donoghue. Office of Nuclear Appendix K power level requirement COMMISSION Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear and to implement power uprates. One Regulatory Commission. Washington, licensee. Texas Utilities Electric 10 CFR Part 50 D.C. 20555-0001: telephone: 301-415- Company (FUE). has obtained an RIN 3150-AG16 1131; or by Internet electronic mail to exemption from the Appendix K jed1@nrc. gov. requirement for Comanche Peak Units 1 Emergency Core Cooling System and 2 and is pursuing an increase in 4 Evaluation Models SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: licensed power based, in part. On more Background accurate feedwater flow measurement AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory capability. The prospect of additional Commission. A holder of an operating license (i.e., exemption requests from other licensees ACTION: Proposed rule. the licensee) for a light water power provides the impetus for the proposed reactor is required by regulations issued rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory by the NRC to submit a safety analysis Commission (NRC) is proposing t The objective of this rulemaking is to report that contains an evaluation of reduce an unnecessarily burdensome cmend its regulations to allow holders emergency core cooling system (ECCS) i of operating licenses for nuclear power regulatory requirement. Appendix K !
performance under loss-of-coolant was issued to ensure an adequate plants to reduce the assumed reactor , accident (LOCA) conditions V power level used in evaluations of perfoimance margin of the ECCS in the l 50.46, " Acceptance criteria tu. event a design-basis LOCA were to emergency core cooling <ystem (ECCS) emergency core cooling systems for occur. The margin is provided by performance. Under the proposed rule, light-water nuclear power reactors " conservative features and requirements licensees would be given the option to requires that ECCS performance under apply a reduced margin for ECCS of the evaluation models and by the '
LOCA conditions be evaluated and that ECCS performance criteria. The existing evaluation or to maintain the value of the estimated performance satisfy regulation does not require that the reactor power currently mandated in the certain criteria. Licensees may conduct" power measurement uncertainty be regulation. This action would allow an analysb that " realistically describes demonstrated, but rather mandates a 2 Interested licensees to pursue small, but the behavior of the reactor system percent margin to account for cost-beneficial, power uprates and during a LOCA" (often termed a "best- uncertainties, including those expected would reduce unnecessary regulatory estimate analysis"), or they may develop to be involved with measuring reactor burden without compromising the a model that conforms with the i
inargin of safety of the facility. power. By allowing licensees tojustify d requirements of Appendix K to 10 CFR a smaller margin for power DATES:The comment period expires on Part 50. Most ECCS evaluations are measurement uncertainty, the proposed December 15,1999. Comments received based on Appendix K requirements. The rule does not violate the underlying after this date will be considered if it is opening sentence of Appendix K purpose of Appendix K. The intent of
- practical to do so but the NRC is able establishes the requirement to conduct Appendix K, to ensure sufficient margin to assure consideration only for ECCS analyses at a specified power to ECCS performance in the event of a comments received on or before this level: "It shall be assumed that the LOCA, would still be met because of the date. reactor has been operating continuously substantial conservatism of other l ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: at a power level at least 1.02 times the Appendix K requirements. The Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory licensed power level (to allow for such proposed rule would not significantly Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555- uncertainties as instrumentation error)." affect plant risk. as discussed in the l 0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Licensees have proposed using section entitled, "ECCS Evaluation Adjudications Staff, Mail Stop O-16C1. Instrumentation that would t educe the Conservatism."
Deliver written comments to: One uncertainties associated with Another objective is to avoid l White Flint North, i1555 Rockville measurement of reactor power whers unnece:,sary exemption requests. As Pike, Rockville, Marviand between 7:30 compared with existing methods of discussed above, a licensee has obtained a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. power measurement. This wouldjustify an exemption from the 2-percent margin Documents related to this rulemaking a reduced margin between the licensed requirement in 10 CFR Part 50, may be examined at the NRC Public power level and the power level Appendix K. It is likely that additinnal Document Room, 2120 L Street. NW, assumed for ECCS evaluations. The exemption requests will be submitted.
(Lower Level), Washington, D.C. proposed rule would revise this Revising the rule to remove the need for I Documents aho may be viewed and provision in Appendix K, thereby licensees to obtain exemptions is l downloaded electronically via the allowing licensees the option of using a considered by the NRC to be a prudem interactive rulemaking Web site value lower than 102 percent of licensed regulatory action.
I Fed:ral Register /Vol. 64, No.190/ Friday, October 1,1999/ Proposed Rules 53271 i if adopted, the proposed rule would amendment requests based on the rules were adopted in 1974 (39 FR 1001, l {
give licensees the option of applying a proposed rule will address the January 4,1974), and were preceded by '
reduced margin between the licensed suitability of non-LOCA analyses for a formal rulemaking hearing which power level and the assumed power operation at proposed higher power ultimately resulted in a Commission level for ECCS evaluation, or levels. decision on the proposed rulemaking, maintaining the current margin of 2- In addition to comments on the CLI-73-39,6 AEC 1085 (December 28, percent power. As discussed in the proposed rule, the NRC is seeking 1973). Neither the statement of
, section entitled "ECCS Evaluation comments on the specific issues set considerations (SOC) for the final rule j Conservatism;" the NRC has concluded forth below under " Issues for Public nor the Commission decision appear to l that the 2 percent power margin Comment." provide specific basis for the required requirement in the existing rule appears Conservatisms in Apper, dix K ECCS assumption of 102 percent power, to be based solely on considerations The SOC for the final 1974 rule Evaluation Model associated with power measurement discusses the 102 percent power extant at the time of the original ECCS Appendix K defines conservative assumption in general terms, and does rulemaking. Ifilcensees can show that analysis assumptions for ECCS not mention instrumentation the uncertainties associated with power Performance evaluations during design- uncertainty:
measurement instrumentation errors are basis LOCAs. Large safety margins are The Commission believes that the less than 2 percent, therebyjustifying a Provided by conservatively selecting the implementation of the new regulations will I smaller margin, then the current rule ECCS performance criteria as well as ensure an adequate margin of performance of
! unnecessarily restricts operation, conservatively establishing ECCS the ECCS should a design basts LOCA ever i Making this change to the rule would calculational requirements. The major . occur. This margin is provided by give licensees the opportunity to use a analytical parameters and assumptions conservativs tatures of the evaluation reduced margin if they determine that that contribute to the conservatisms in models and by the criteria themselves. Some
' Appendix K are set forth in Sections A f the major points that contribute to the there is a sufficient benefit. Licensees through D of the rule: (A) " Sources of c nservative nature of the evaluations and could apply the margin to gain benefits '
from operation at higher power, or the Heat During the LOCA" (the 102 I"g*f,"'$l to *P, umption
,ss of 102 margin could be used to relax ECCS. percent power provision is a key factor). percent of maximum power, highest allowed related technical specifications (e.g., (B) " Swelling and Rupture of the peaking factor, and highest estimated thermal pump flows). Another potential benefit Cladding and Fuel Rod Thermal resistance between the UO2 and the cladding would be in modifying fuel management Parameters,'" (C) " Blowdown provides a calculated stored heat that is strategies (e.g., possibly by altering core Phenomena," and (D) " Post-blowdown possible but unlikely to occur at the time of power peaking factors). However, the Phenomena: Heat Removal by ECCS."In a hypothetical accident. While not h' r rl xtreme proposed rule by itself does not allow each of these areas, several assumptions c r$o u h"pr t a increases in licensed power levels. are typically used to ensure substantial Because licensed power level for a plant conservatism in the analysis results. For tirneassumption which is not that an accident happens at a typical. I' is a tecnnical specification limit, instance: under " Sources of Heat During the LOCA,' Jecay heat is modeled on 39 FR at 1002 (first column)> .Thus, proposals to raise the licensed power while the pre-accident power level level must be reviewed and approved the basis of an American Nuclear Society standard with an added 20 a " "$ " t d wit under the license amendment process.
The license amendment request should Percent penalty, and the power n 8o he eo 8 after the LOCA occurs, a clear basis for include ajustification of the reduced distribution shape and peaking factors the 102 percent assumed power level
)
power measurement uncertainty and the expected during the operating cycle are chosen to yield the most conservative requirement is not provided, nor does basis for the modified ECCS analysis, including the justification for reduced results. In " Blowdown Phenomena," the the SOC explain whether there are other power measurement uncertainty, should rule requires use of the Moody model uncert inties besides instrumentation then be included in documentation and the discharge coefficient that yields uncertainties fc r which the 102 percent the highest peak cladding temperature. assumed power level is intended to supporting the ECCS analysis (see Section-b -Section Analysis). " Post' Blowdown Phenomena; Heat in the sbort term, the NRC intends to Removal by the ECCS," requires that the C "{nsate. ,
grant exemptions to the assumed power analysis assume the most damaging ECCS ru e n i 8 ea n8 so do s not level provision of Appendix K for I
- e l02 en
)toperly supported exemption requests.
singne of several conservat vele failure {Pof "
ECCS d I equi eA ment. n requirements in Section A is to assume address uncertainties other than n addition to satisfying the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12, properly supported that the reactor is operating at 102 instrumentation uncertainties. Section i Percent power when the LOCA occurs f the Commission decision was the exemption requests are expected to "to allow for such uncertainties as basis for the SOC discussion on the 102 quantify the uncertainties associated with measuring reactor thermal power instrumentation error. . " (Appendix percent assumed power level (See 6 that are associated with the current 2 K.Section I.A., first sentonce, emphasis AEC at 1093-94). Section 111. A. of the percent power margin. added). The phrase, "such as," suggests Commission's decision, Required and in the langer ter: t the NRC intends to that the two percent power margin was Acceptable Features of the Evaluation Model," does not offer a detailed review the affected safety analysis intended to address uncertainties guidance and will evaluate the impact related to heat source considerations technical the basis for the power level of the proposed rule on those safety beyond instrument measurement chosen, but instead uses the language analyses. Further, the NRC is uncertainties. However, the basis for the ultimately adopted in the final I
considering the need for specific required assumption of 102 percent Appendix K rule:
guidance to help licensees appropriately power (2 percent power margin) does i
account for power measurement not appear to be contained in the dyj;'",'j$n s wa nn tapcenu ja
! uncertainty in safety analyses. However, rulemaking record for the ECCS rules. See CLi-73 -39. 6 AFC 1085.1093-94 (Decemter the NRC expects that power uprate 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K. These 28.1973).
f
! 53272 Federal Register /Vol. 64. No.190/ Friday, October 1.1999/ Proposed Rules i For the heat sources usted in paragraphs i form. The power level assumption is necessary when the rule was written i to 4 below it shall be assumed that the mentioned again in the Concluding because of a lack of experimental
) neactor has been operating continuously at a w e Statement indirectly in association with evidence at that time with respect to the j tg ly$2 ttm
,,c c ,
power level changes before the LOCA relative effects of analysis input I as instrumentation error), with the maximum and the effect on decay heat generation. parameters including pre-accident peaking factor allowed by the technical But it is discussed most directly with power level. Since that time, there has spectrications. regard to initial stored energy in the been substantial additional research on 6 AEC at 1100. Thus, the Commission's fuel. In the discussion on stored energy, LOCA. NUREG-1230. " Compendium of decision does not shed further light on the 102-percent assumption is attributed ECCS Research for Realistic LOCA t , uncertainties inherent in the Analysis, December 1988, contains the the basis for the 102 percent assumed power level, nor whether the measumment of the operating power technical basis for improved Commission had in mind uncertainties level f the . ore. ,(page 144 of the understanding of LOCA progression and other than those associated with the Concludin. Statement). Reasons for ECCS evaluation gained after the ECCS instrumentation for measurement of choosing l'02-percent as the value are rule was issued. The NUREG includes a not discussed. discussion of the basis for uncertainties I revi w of the ECCS rulemaking When Appendix K was first issued, as in detailed fuel bundle power hearing record did not disclose is the case today, the thermal power calculations as part of the consideration presentations relating to quantification gener ted by a nuclear power plant was of overall calculational uncertainty of power measurement uncertainties, or determined by steam plant calorimetry, inherent in best-estimate evaluations.
the magnitude of other uncertainties which is the process of performing a Chapters 7 and 8 of the NUREG include that the 102 percent assumed power heat balance around the nuclear steam consideration of the changes in licensed level may have been intended to supply system (called a calorimetric). power level that could result from address. The Commission decision The heat balance depends upon application of best-estimate evaluation (CL1-73-39,6 AEC 1085, December 28' measurent of smal plant methods. The discussion includes an parameters. Including flow rates and estimated sensitivity of predicted peak 1973) cited three documents in the rulemaking hearing record. The first' fluid temperatures. The differential clad temperature associated with cited in the Commission decision as Pressure across a venturi installed in the changes in pre-accident power level.
Exhibit 1113, was " Supplemental water Dow pam is a Wement in Fmm that estimate, the NRC expects the calorimetric measurement. peak cladding temperature changes of Testimony of the AEC Regula ory Staff Licensees have proposed using on the Interim Acceptance Criteria for approximately 15 F to result from I-Instrumentation other than a venturi- percent changes in plant power level Emergency Core Cooling Systems for based system to obtain feedwater flow Light Water Cooled Power Reactors, , that could result from the proposed rule.
(filed October 26,1972). In Section 10 rate for calorimetrics. The lower In view of: (i) Substantial uncertainty associated with the new conservatisms embodied in the of the document, stored energy in the instrumentation is information that was Appendix K requirements for ECCS fuel was considered, specifically the apparently not available during the evaluations, (ii) new information expected power distributions in fuel original Appendix K rulemaking, developed since the 1974 rulemaking rods. The 102-percent power analysis In view of the regulatory history for which shows additional conservatism in <
requirement is not discussed. The Appendix K, f he Commission now the Appendix K modeling requirements second item, cited in the Commission believes that the 2-percent margin beyond that understood by the I decision as Exhibit 1137 was " Redirect embodied in the requirement for a 102- Commission when it adopted the 1974 and Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Donald percent assumed power level in rule, and (iii) the relative insensitivity of l IL Roy on Behalf of Babcock & Wilcox," Appendix K was based solely on the calculated clad temperatmes to I (October 26.1972) 'n which the uncertainties associated with the assumed power level, the C mmission characteristic of the decay heat release measurement of reactor power level. concludes that it is acceptable to allow following reactor shutdown was a reduction in the currently-required discussed. In this document, the 102 Proposed Reduction in 102 Percent Assumed Power Level 102 percent power level assumption if percent assumption is associated with justified by the actual power level the predicted decay heat generation rate. The Commission believes that other measurement instrumentation The over-power condition is associated requirements of Appenoix K modeling uncertainty. Accordingly, the with a " design basis maneuvering include substantial conservatisms of Commission proposes to amend the operation." but the basis for the value of much greater magnitude than the 2 Appendix K requirement for an power chosen for the analysis (i.e.,102 percent margin embodied in the assumed 102 percent power level. The percent) is not disclosed. Finally, in the requirement for a 102 percent assumed proposed rule would allow a licensee to
" Concluding Statement of Position of power level. This point was discussed use an assumed power level of less than the Regula'.ory Staff-Public in "Conservatisms in Appendix K ECCS 102 percent (but not less than 100 Rulemaking Hearing on: Acceptance Evaluation Model," above. percent), provided that the licensee has Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling The Commission is also aware of new determined that the uncertainties in the Systems for Light-Water Cooled Nuclear information gained since the 1974 measurement of core power level Power Reactors," April 16,1973 (the rulemaking which shows that the justifies the reduced margin.
Concluding Statement), the power level Appendix K model contains substantial assumpilon is included as part of the conservatisms. Evidence from Calorimetric Uncertainty and proposed rule itself. The proposed rule experiments designed to simulate LOCA Feedwater Flow Measurement language clearly states that the power phenomena suggest that these The NRC staff has approved an level assumption is to " allow for conservatisms added hundreds of exemption to the 102-percent power instrumentation erro ." The term "such degrees Fahrenheit to the prediction of level requirement for Comanche Peak as" does not appear here. It is uriclear peak fuel cladding temperature than Units 1 and 2. The basis for the action when or why the proposed language in would actually occur during a LOCA. is application of upgraded feedwater i this regard was changed to its current The significant conservatism was flow measurement technology at the l
1 Fed:r:1 Regist:r/Vol. 64 No.190/ Friday, October 1,1999/ Proposed Rules 53273 plant As indicated, the prospect of other sources of uncertainty in addition change a parameter in an approved additional licensees requesting similar to instrumentation error. However, ECCS evaluation model. Estimated action has prompted the proposed rule. explicit documentation of the basis for changes in ECCS performance due to Other methods, systems, or analyses the value of the margin does not appear revised analysis inputs are reported could be use 1 as the basis for to be contained in the rulemaking under 5 50.46 (a)(3), at least annually.
demonstrating reduced power record for the original 1974 ECCS As discussed in the Statement of measurement uncertainty. rulemaking. The Commission is Considerations for Appendix K (53 FR in most nuclear power plants, interested in whether there are other 36001, September 16,1988), the annual operators obtain a continuous indication sources of uncertainty, relevant to reports keep NRC apprised of changes.
of core thermal power from nuclear sources of heat following a LOCA, that This should ensure that the NRC staff instruments, that provide a should be considered when licensees canjudge a licensee's assessment of the measurement of neutron flux. The seek to reduce the margin in the significance of changes and maintain nuclear instruments must be Appendix K requirement for assumed cognizance of modifications made to periodically calibrated to counteract the power, If other contributors are NRC-approved evaluation models. The effects of changes in flux pattern, fuel suggested, a clear technical justification licensee must include revised burnup, and instrument drift. Steam should accompany the suggestion. Parameters and other changes in the plant calorimetry, which is the process 2. Are there rulemaking alternatives to ECCS evaluation as required by 5 50.46 of performing a heat balance around the this proposed rule that were not (a)(3) when a single change or an nuclear steam supply system (called a considered in the regulatory analysis for accumulation of changes is expected to calorimetric), is used to determine core this proposed rule 7 affect peak cladding temperature by thermal power and is the basis for the 3. What criteria should be used for 50 F or more. The basis for the revised I calibration. The differential pressure determining whether a proposed analysis parameter (i.e., the assumed <
across a venturl installed in the reduction in the 2 percent power margin power level) should be included in I feedwater flow path is a key element in has beenjustified, based upon a documentation of the evaluation model, !
the calorimetric measurement. Some determination of instrumentation error? as required by Appendix K, Part 11 (1)(a), '
plants use this calorimetric value For example, should a oemonstrated in most cases, the NRC expects that directly to indicate thermal power; the instrumentation error of I percent in the analysis supporting the power nuclear instruments are uwd m. power level be presumptive of an measurement uncertainty, as well as the anticipatory indicators fe ,ients acceptable reduction in assumed power description of the relevant and for reactivity adjust e made margin of 1 percent? instrumentation and associated plant-with the control rods. 4. How should the proposed rule specific parameters involved in the The system in use at Comanche Peak address cases in which licensees uncertainty analysis, would be Units 1 and 2 is the Leading Edge determine that power measurement submitted for NRC review and approval Flowmeter (LEFM), manufactured by instrument error is greater than 2 before being used. These requests are Caldon, Inc. The LEFM system is an percent? expected because most licensees have ultrasonic flow meter that measures the adopted Generic Letter 88-16. " Removal transit times of pulses traveling along Section-by-Section Analysis of Cycle-Specific Parameter Limits from parallel acoustic paths through the Appendix K to Part 50-ECCS Technical Specifications." The generic flowing fluid. LEFM technology has Evaluation Models (I)(A)-Sources of letter provided guidance for licensees to been employed in non-nuclear heat during the LOCA transfer cycle-specific parameters from applications, such as petroleum, their technical specifications to a Core chemical, and hydroelectric plants for This section would be amended by Operating Limits Report (COLR).
several years. This operating experience removing words from the first sentence Licensees following the generic letter will provide reliability data, in the section to specifically associate guidance added an administrative supplementing data from nuclear the power level requirement with requirement to their technical applications. Additionalinformation on instrumentation error, and by adding a specifications that specifically identifies the Comanche Peak Appendix K sentence immediately following the first NRC-reviewed and approved methods exemption and on the Caldon, Inc. sentence in the section. The new used to determine core operating limits LEFM system appears in safety sentence indicates that licensees may (e g., topical reports). Because a number evaluations issued by the NRC staff on assume a power levellower than 102 of core operating limits are based on March 8,1999, and May 6,1999. Percent, but not less than 100 percent. LOCA analysis results ECCS evaluation ABB Combustion Engineering has provided that the proposed lower methods are included in the technical expressed interest in the proposed rule alternative vclue can be shown to specification list. Therefore, most because its flow-measuring system, account for cere thermal power licensees opting to use the relaxation in known as Crossflow (which is also an measurement instrumentation the proposed rule would need to revise ultasonic flow-measuring device), is uncertainty. technical specifications to include a expected to be part of a licensee Appendix K. Part 11 (1)(a) requires that reference to an NRC-approved topical exemption request in the near future. the values of analysis parameters or report that includes the uncertainty their basis be sufficiently documented analysisjustifying reduced power issues for Public Comment to allow NRC review The requirement measurement uncertainty.
The NRC is seeking comments from applies to all analysis input parameters. An additional technical specification l the public on the following issues including those related to other plant consideration for licensees pursuing related to this proposed rule: instrumentation, such as temperature changes based on the proposed rule
- 1. The current rule states that the and pressure. Changes to other inputs could involve nuclear instruments (N1) required 2-percent analysis margin is to are documented in the same manner as requirements. Existing plant technical account for "such uncertainties as the power measurement uncertainty specifications include surveillance instrumentation error. . ." (emphasis would be oocumented under the requirements to calibrate the power added). This suggests that the 2-percent proposed rule. NRC review and range Nis based on the calorimetric l margin was intended to account for approval is not necessarily needed to measuring reactor thermal power. The l
L
53274' '
Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.190/ Friday, October 1,1999/ Proposed Rules Nls provide the indication of reactor editorial changes have been made in the types of any effluents that raay be I power used as an input for safety released off site; and there would be no this proposed amendment to improve l
systems. Licensees obtaining the readabliity of the existing language of significant increase in occupational or relaxation offered in the proposed rule the provisions being revised. These public radiation exposure, Therefore.
are expected to change some operating types of changes are not discussed there are no significant radiological l parameter of the plant, whether it be further in this document. The NRC environmental impacts associated with power level, required ECCS flow, etc. By requests comment on the proposed rule the proposed action. The proposed incorporating thejustification of specifically with respect to the clarity action does not involve non-radiological reduced uncertainty in power and effectiveness of the language used. plant effluents and has no other measurement in the basis for their ECCS Comments should be sent to the address environmental impact. Therefore, there analysis, licensees would be placing a listed under the ADDRESSES caption of are no significant non-radiological condition on an input to the the preamble. environmen.al impacts associated with calorimetric. The NI calibration required Voluntary Consensus Standards th ro sed action.
by the plant licensee would then be T ie etermination of the based on a calorimetric assuming the The National Technology Transfer Act environmental assessment is that there reduced power measurement of 1995, Pub. L.104-113, requires that would be no significant offsite impact uncertainty. If, for some reason, during Federal agencies use technical standards on the public from this action. However, the course of plant operation the that are developed or adopted by the general public should note that the reduced uncertainty did not apply (e.g., voluntary consensus standards bodies NRC welcomes public participation.
the new feedwater flow meter became unless the use of such a standard is Also, the NRC has committed itself to inoperable), the calorimetric would no inconsistent with applicable law or complying in allits actions with longer be a valid source of calibration otherwise impractical. In this proposed Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, " Federal for the Nis. Licensees would need to rule, the NRC is proposing to provide Actions To Address Environmental take action to maintair compliance with holders of operating licenses for nuclear Justice in Minority Populations and their technical specification, for Power plants with the option of Low-income Populations," dated example, by using an alterna;e input to reducing the assumed reactor power February 11,1994. The NRC has the calorimetric. The power level used in ECCS evaluations. This determined that there are no measurement uncertainties associated proposed action constitutes a disproportionately high and adverse with the alternate input would then modification to an existing government- impacts on minority and low-income apply and the plant would need to unique standard,10 CFR part 50, populations. In the letter and si bt of adjust its operating condition (possibly appendix K issced by the NRC on E.O.12898, the NRC is requesting lower its operating power level) to January 4,1974. The NRC is not aware public comments on any environmental satisfy the proposed rule and to of any voluntary consensus standard justice considerations or questions that maintain the validity of applicable that could be adopted instead of the the public thinks may be related to this safety analyses. Proposed government-unique standard. proposed rule, but that somehow were The NRC will consider using a not addressed. The NRC uses the R ferenced Documents voluntary consensus standard if an following working definition of Copies of GL-88-16 and CLI-73-39 appropriate standard is identified. If a environmentaljustice: Environmental are available for inspection and copying voluntary consensus standard is justice means the fair treatment and for a fee at the NRC Public Document identified for consideration, the meaningfulinvolvement of all people, Room. 2120 L Street, NW, (Lower submittal must explain how the regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, j Level), Washington, D.C. voluntary consensus standard is income, or educational level with i comparable and why it should be used respect to the development, Electronic Access instead of the proposed government- implementation and enforcement of You may also submit comments via unique standard. environmental laws, regulations, and the NRC's interactive rulemaking Web Policies. Comments on any aspect of the site ,Rulemaking Forum, through the Finding of No Significant environmental assessment, including NRC home page (http1/ EnvironmentalImpact: Availability environmentaljustice, may be ruleforum.llnl. gov). This site enables The NRC has determined under the submitted to the NRC as indicated people to transmit comments as files (in National Environmental Policy Act of under the ADDRESSES heading.
any format, but Wordperfect version 6.1 1969, as amended, and the NRC's The draft environmental assessment is is preferred), if your Web browser regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part avaliable for inspection at the NRC supports that function. Information on 51, that this regulation,if adopted. Public Document Room. 2120 L Street the use of the Rulemaking Forum is would not be a maj1r Federal action NW. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
available on the Web site. For additional significantly af fecti.1g the quality of the Single copies of the environmental assistance on the use of the interactive human environment and, therefore, an assessment are available from Mr.
rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol environmental impact statement is not Joseph Donoghue. Office of Nuclear Gallagher, telephone: 301-415-5905; or required. Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclen by Internet electronic mail to The proposed action is likely to result Regulatory Commission, Washington, cag@nrc. gov, in relat!vely small changes to ECCS D.C. 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-analyses or to the licensed power of 1131, or by Internet electronic mail to Phin Language nuclear reactor facilities. The NRC staff JEDi@nrc. gov.
The Presidential memorandum dated expects that no significant June 1,1998, entitled, " Plain Language environmental impact would result Paperwork Reduction Act Statement i in Government Writing," directed that fsom the proposed rule, because This proposed rule increases the the government's writing be in plain licensee actions based on the proposed burden on licensees opting to use a language. This memorandum was rule would not significantly increase the reduced power level assumption for published June 10,1998 (63 FR 31883).. probability or consequences of ECCS analysis (i.e., below 102%) to in complying with this directive, accidents, no changes would be made in include the change in their annual l
I
F:d:r:1 Register /Vol. 64 No.190/ Friday, October 1,1999/ Proposed Rules 53275 report required under 10 CFR 50.46 backfit as defined in 10 CFR demonstrated to account for uncertainties (a)(3)(ii). The public hurden for this 50.109(a)(1). due to power level instrumentation error. A information collection is estimated to range of power distribution shapes and List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 peaking factors representing power average one-half hour per response.
Antitrust, Classified information, clistributions that may occur over the core Because the burden for this information "
collection is insignificant, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations Nuclear
$$'n"$o is ribut s ape and peaking factor should be the one that results clearance is not required. Existing power plants and peactors. Radiation in the most severe calculated consequences requirements were approved by the protection. Reactor siting criteria. for the spectrum of nostulated breaks and Office of Management and Budget. Reporting and recordkeeping single failures that are analyzed, approval number 3150-0011. requirements. . . . . .
Accordingly, we propose to amend 10 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day Public Protection Notification CFR part 50 as follows: of September,1999.
If a means used to impose an For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Information collection does not display PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF Kenneth R. Ilart, a currently valid OMB control number, PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION Acting. Secretary orme commission.
the NRC may not conduct or sponsor. FACILITIES (FR Doc. 99-25582 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 aml and a person is not required to respond 1. The authority citation for Part 50 en.UNG CODE 7590-ObP to, the information collection. continues to read as follows:
Regulatory Analysis Authority: Sections 102,103,104,105, 161.182, ? 83.186,189,68 Stat. 936. 937, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Commission has prepared a 938,948.953,954,955.956, as amended. '
regulatory analysis on this regulation. sec. 234. 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. Federal Aviation Administration Interested persons may examine a copy 2132,2133,2134,2135,2201,2232,2233, of the regulatory analysis at the NRC 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended. 14 CFR Part 39 Public Document Room 2120 L Street 202,206,88 Stat.1242, as amended.1244' 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841. 5842,5846). [ Docket No. 99-NM-22-AD]
NW, (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
Single copies of the analysis are Secti n 50.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95- RIN 2120-AA64 601, sec.10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. MSI).
available from Mr. Joseph Donoghue.
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. Ist. Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation- 185,68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 U.S.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Model 747 Series Airplanes 2131,2235), sec.102, Pub. L.91-190,83 Stat.
Washington, D.C. 2M55-0001, 853 (42 U.S C. 4332). Sections 50.13. AGENCY: Federal Aviation telephone: 301-415-1131, or by Internet 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. Administration, DOT.
electronic mail to JED ? @NRC. GOV. 108,68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C*
2138). Sections 50.23. 50.35,50.55, and 50.56 ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking Rrgulatory Flexibility Certification (NPRM).
also issued under sec.185. 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sections 50.33a, 50.55a. and As required by the Regulatory
SUMMARY
- This document proposes the a "" Pub.
Flexibility Act of 1980,5 U.S.C. 605(b). (Pgl 3 at. (42 C 32)'.
adoption of a new alrworthinc s the Commission certifies that this Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under directive (AD) that is applicable to proposed rule, if adopted, would not sec. 204,88 Stat.1245 (42 U.S.C. 584.!). certain Boeing Model 747 series have a significant economic impact on Sections 50.58. 50.91, and 50.92 also issued airplanes. This proposal would require a substantial number of small entitles. under Pub. L.97-415,96 Stat. 2073 (42 repetitive inspections to detect This proposed rule would affect only U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under discrepancies of the cables, fittings, and the licensing and operation of nuclear sec.122,68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C. 2152). pulleys of the engine thrust control power plants. The companies that own Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. cable installation, and replacement, if 184,68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. necessary. This proposal would also these plants do not fall within the definition of "small entities" found in ^P " 'd" -
require certain preventative actions on g st["955 ( S 37).
the Regulatory Flexibility Act or within the engine thrust control cable the size standards established by the 2 Appendix K to Part 50 is amended installation for certain airplanes. This NRC in 10 CFR 2.810. by revising the introductory paragraph proposal is prompted by reports of of 1. A., "$ources of heat during the failure of engine thrust control cables.
B;ckfit Analysis LOCA " to read as follows. The actions specified by the proposed The NRC has determined that the Appendix K m Part 50-ECCS Evaluation AD are intended to prevent such backfit rule in 10 CFR 50.109 does not Models failures, which could result in a severe apply to this proposed rule and that a 1. Required and Acceptable Features of the asymmetric thrust condition during bickfit analys!s is not required for this Evaluation Models landing. and consequent reduced proposed rule because the change does A. Sources of heat during the LOCA. For cn aW oW ayane not involve any provisions that would the heat sources listed in paragraphs I. A. I DATES: Comments must be received by impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR to 4 of this appendix it must be assumed that November 15.1999.
50.109(a)(1), The proposed rule would the reactor has been operating continuously ADDRESSES: Submit comments in l establish an alternative approach for at a power level at least 1.02 times the triplicate to the Federal Aviation ECCS performance evaluations that may licensed p wer level (t allow for Administration (FAA), Transport Instmmentauon emx), witMhc maximum be voluntarily adopted by licensees. Airplane Directorate ANM-114.
Licensees may continue to comply with "8 ' Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM.-
f ca o s. i Nu -
io ]l existing requirements in Appendix K- lower than the level specified in this 22-AD,1601 Lind Avenue, SW..
The proposed rule does not impose a paragraph (but not less than the licensed Renton. Washington 98055-4056.
new requirement on current licensees power level) may be used provided the Comments may be inspected at this l l and therefore, does not constitute a proposed alternauve value has been location between 9.00 a.m. and 3:00 l l
l i
L i
i I
f Enclosure 2 t
Environmental Assessment l
l 1
i i
I l
i i
i l
1 i
l I
J
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX K This document examines the environmenta' impacts of its regulatory actions in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, for a rulemaking addressing NRC's current emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) evaluation requirements for nuclear power reactors NRC is proposing to modify these requirements, which are contained in Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50. The proposed rule would provide a voluntary option for licensees to apply a reduced margin between the licensed power level and the assumed power level for ECCS evaluation. The currently required analysis margin is 2 percent of licsased reactor power.
NRC's regulations for implementing Section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, are contained in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51. These regulations require that an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment be prepared for all licensing and regulatory actions that are not classified as " categorical exclusions" in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c) and are not identified in 10 CFR 51.22(d) as other actions not requiring environmental review.
This document presents the findings of NRC's environmental assessment of the proposed rule.
Identification of the Proposed Action A holder of an operating license (i.e., the licensee) for a light-water power reactor is required by regulations issued by the NRC to submit a safety analysis report that contains an evaluation' of ECCS performance under accident conditions. Section 50.46, " Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors," requires that ECCS performance under loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions be evaluated and that the estimated performance satisfy certain criteria. Licensees may conduct an analysis that
" realistically describes the behavior of the reactor system during a LOCA" (often termed a "best-estimate analysis"), or they may develop a model that conforms with the required and acceptable features of Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50. Most ECCS evaluations are based on Appendix K requirements. The opening sentence of Appendix K establishes the requirement to conduct ECCS analyses at a specified power level: "It shall be assumed that the reactor has been operating continuously at a power level at least 1.02 times the licensed power level (to allow for such uncertainties as instrumentation error)."
The proposed rule would give licensees the option to apply a reduced margin between the licensed power level and the assumed power level for ECCS evaluation. The current margin of 2 percent power may be maintained, if preferred. If licensees can show that the uncertainties associated with power measurement instrumentation errors are less than 2 percent, and a L
smaller margin can be justified, then the current rule unnecessarily restricts operation of some facilities by limiting their ability to operate at higher power levels, and in other cases by imposing unnecessary requirements on ECCS performance.
i l
l L I
N ,
'e t Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 was written to define conservative analysis assumptions for ECCS performance evaluations during design-basis LOCAs. Large margins for important safety parameters were provided by conservatively selecting the ECCS performance criteria as
- well as conservatively establishing ECCS calculational requirements. The staff has long recognized that Appendix K incorporated substantial conservatisms and previously had considered methods that would acceptably reduce safety margins; The conservatisms were necessary when the rule was written because of a lack of experimental evidence at that time.
-When the NRC adopted changes to 10 CFR 50.46 to allow "best-estimate" modeling, it concluded that experimental evidence gained since the original rule was implemented and analysis advances allowed the consideration of alternative approaches. In the proposed rule, the staff is extending the application of its understanding of ECCS evaluation conservatism to X, _
allow relaxation of one of several conservative analysis features.
The current analytical approach of assuming 102 percent of licensed power for ECCS
- evaluation is adequate to protect public health and safety
- therefore, the NRC does not intend to l < - backfit a change to the regulation on operating reactors. Because the proposed revision would not constitute a backfit, the bases for current ECCS evaluations must be preserved. Therefore,
- the revision will retain the current requirement as an option for licensees.
i
!- Need for the Proposed Action L
p 1 The objective of this rulemaking is to allow the voluntary relaxation of an unnecessarily 1
burdensome regulatory requirement. Appendix K was issued to ensure an adequate performance margin of the ECCS in the event a design-basis LOCA were to occur.' The margin Lis provided by conservative features and requirements of the evaluation models and by the ECCS performance criteria By allowing a smaller margin for power measurement uncertainty, the proposed rule does not undermine the underlying purpose of Appendix K.
l A secondary objective is to avoid unnecessary exemption requests. The staff has L previously sought rule changes to avoid the prospect of multiple exemption requests. in the
. case of this proposed change to Appendix K, the staff is anticipating recurrent exemptions and has determined that revising the rule at this early stage will be the best course.
l" Environmentalimpacts of the Proposed Action
~
. The proposed rule would affect an analysis assumption for ECCS evaluation, not actual l: LOCA effects. Use of a reduced power margin alone cannot affect core damage frequency, the p . large early release frequency, or actual accident release consequences. The actual accident
! sequence and progression of a LOCA are not changed unless the licensee modifies its facility.
- l. ' However, the proposed rule may have indirect effects on the environment by allowing licensees h - to pursue changes to their facilities such as increases to licensed power.
The most' obvious change a licensee might pursue under the proposed rule is to increase the licensed power of the facility without conducting ECCS evaluations at a higher
. power level. Licensees requesting higher licensed power levels are required to assess
~#
g.
- w environmental effects of the change. However, the NRC expects only negligible effects on the
. environment from small power level changes, such as those that are likely to result from the proposed rule. The NRC previously considered the effects of smallincreases in licensed power level and concluded that such changes would present little change in risk. In NUREG-1230 (Reference 2), the staff considered the risk impact of changes associated with the revised ECCS rules allowing best-estimate analyses, including power increases, and determined that a power levelincrease of 5 percent or less had little risk significance. This conclusion was, in part, based
. on the staff's estimate that a small power level increase would only slightly increase the fission product inventory.- Also, the staff judged that a slightly higher power would not appreciably alter
- the potential for LOCAs or affect predicted accident progression.
The staff also considered the risk impact from boiling water reactor extended power uprates, which are much greater than the marginal power change expected under the proposed rule. In these cases, the staff concluded (Reference 3) that extended power uprates are expected to only slightly. affect the risk profile of a plant. The staff also stated that marginal power uprates, of about 1 percent, were not expected to require an assessment of plant risk.
' An overall affect of a pcwer uprate for a large number of plants is the possible increase in the amount of spent fuel generated by operating at higher power. For the purposes of this assessment, the staff assumed a linear relationship between power level and amount of fuel 7 discharged, and a 1-percent power level increase for 50 plants. Using information on predicted
' fuel discharges contained in the " Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants" (Reference 4), the staff estimated that a marginal power increase for half the operating plants would amount to a total of approximately 70 additional discharge fuel bundles per year. This is less than the number of fuel bundles discharged during a typical reactor refueling for a plant. There is a potential cumulative effect associated with the anticipated annual increase in discharged fuel. However, it is not considered significant in light of the 1
- cumulative level of all fuel discharges during the lifetime of an operating facility.
- Under the proposed rule, some licensees could realize savings without seeking power e . uprates.' By revising their ECCS analysis based on a lower assumed powar level, licensees could gain margin that could lead to a relaxation in requirements for LOCA mitigation system
'y .
(i.e., ECCS) performance or in core operating parameters. Changes to technical specifications requirements for ECCS system performance will require license amendments and licensees will J need to determine environmental impacts. ' in these cases involving relatively small changes to ECCS analyses, the staff expects that no significant environmental impact would result.
The proposed action, as well as its indirect and cumulative effects, would not increase the probabilitypr 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 L
public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts i - associated with the proposed action. The proposed action does not involve non-radiological l- plant effluents and has no other environmentalimpact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
. radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
L L '
L
Alternatives to the Proposed Action l . As required by Section 102(2)(E) of the NEPA (42 U.S.C.A. 4332(2)(E)), the NRC has
!, - considered possible alternatives to the proposed action. The staff considered the following
- rulemaking options
- (1) maintain the provision requiring an analysis margin to account for
- uncertainty in power measurement but remove the specification of the 2-percent value for the l margi. .nd require licensees _to assess power measurement uncertainty; (2) eliminate the i requit ement for a margin between power level and assumed power, disregarding power .
measurement uncertainty; and (3) broadly revise Appendix K, addressing several conservative parameters.
The alternative of retaining the existing assumed power requirement (i.e., no-action alternative) would essentially have the same environmental impact as rulemaking alternatives 1.and 2 if licensees pursued exemptions from the current Appendix K requirement. Under the no-action attemative, licensees could also consider the more costly alternative of implementing a best-estimate ECCS evaluation under 6 50.46. However, fewer licensees are expected to take this course, because if there currently were sufficient benefit, they would have already done so. The potential power increase under c t'est-estimate evaluation is expected to be greater l
than the marginal power increase associated with the proposed rule. However, the fewer licensees that would use this option reduces the resulting overall environmental impact. The staff assumed that the environmental impact for either scenario under the no-action alternative would be roughly equivalent.
l The environmental effects for the first two alternatives would be roughly equivalent, because about the same number of licensees would seek benefits under any change that would allow a relaxation in the requirement. The main distinction between these alternatives is the course taken to revise the rule. But the end result is the same, in that a marginal power increase would be an indirect result. ' As discussed earlier, the staff considers marginal power increases to present little risk on a plant-specific basis and the overall effect of increased spent fuel generation is considered small.
The final rulemaking option, to broadly revise Appendix K requirements, could allow g greater increases in licensed power for operating plants. However, since there is not a clear
! understanding of the magnitude of the changes that might result, the staff can only speculate that such a revision would lead to power uprates somewhat greater than those expected under
- the proposed rule change. The resulting power increases may be commensurate with those associated with previous changes considered by the staff, such as those discussed in L NUREG-1230, which were not considered risk-significant.
l' D ' Therefore, none of the alternatives considered by the staff is expected to significantly affect the environment.
l I
I Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC developed the proposed rule and this environmental assessment. The proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register for all interested parties to review. All l
p g.
- e .
- ,-
r
- comments received within the stated time limit will be considered in developing the final rule.
1The NRC is sending this environmental assessment to all State liaison officers for comment..
Finding of No Significant impact On the basis of the' environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the
- proposed action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. : Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
! action.
i i
Also, the NRC is committed to following Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions To '
g Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations," dated '
February.11,1994 ~ Since there are no significant offsite impacts on the public from this action, the NRC has determined that there are no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on -
minority and low-income parties. The NRC uses the following working definition of environmental justice: Environmenta/ justice means the fair treatment and meaningful
- involvement of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, income, or educational level with
< respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, !
. regulations, and policies. !
] References i1. Code of FederaI Regulations, Title 10, Chapter I, Parts 50 and 51. J
- , i l ~2; . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Compendium of ECCS Research for Realistic l LOCA Analysis," NUREG-1230, Washington, D.C., December 1988.
l .
l l . 3.' ; U.S. Nuclearbywatory Commission, Letter from EDO to ACRS, " Staff Response to i I . ACRS Letter of July 24,1998 on General Electric Nuclear Energy Extended Power .;
j _ Uprate Program and Monticello Nuclear Gener& ting Plant Extended Power Level l l - Increase Request,". September 14,1998, i
- 4. U.S. Nu' clear Regulatory Commission, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
. License Renewal of Nuclear Plants," NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Washington, D.C., !
. May 1906.
e 4
'f e
5 h i r . ~
-7 , ,
n . . . .
e .
,q,q 3 7,, 4.'Rg ,
, , 4yqq y,.7, . ; ~ ;gy, g( *K5'"y'yWR M
pay M, , p n.m.y. STATE n
f%-&n& '
C, u
~&%nM[V&_PR6GRAlWS pn w m .+%.Q(~Q OFFICiE. TRAC' KINGM e
SYSTEM .f 6w M l 1
f'Gfff?f@QfjifGfyQ?&& lY&mQ.y vGps Jim; Gyp &l}Qf Qg }4lll,jgQ3waawww -
..f yyfji$ff . {v w 9;y'.;, wy ln&j j e&mw$qwwm M,Ww .a%%
gy ppm r; g cACTIVE PROJE.CT,Sgg t w
&ng 3~ 4 gn7 on 4 ww u 2.v%s:
.g -s+ a% ; wp w a w> y!gsgyingamma. ;rnmm9Wmy,;e.x-cmum %mv#p %.Fn m .w Lpv,,w m %.wnnw w A n2 awn nsu.. e.n M Mz:w n
f
~
m w -
, 3 4m m y.m bypqxo .sg yn.,
9/27/99NIF 5 , m$%y O de@ v mn W MF ,TOS Q Md %,.y d m >m p,a m. i aDO[mCale$wl vc, w- m nu mwn@~ m&rMMM m- 1 m e n.hna m p +n.
- @ g--~g y-mf wn g g.wm> a:$w i ? $,-
. nq~. .s - .
pa \
%@uw wm&j9-201 4g ProteclEN m e !g% -
@>g$q'qg$
" - M s.k. !
upt. 7 Pseleccoacsipson. STATE CONSULTATION OF PROPOSED REVISION TO APPEND 1X ZM.m.4$Q M#nM - - Wx.u+e.A c..ya, w w:bc a.mjh K.10 CFR PART 50 YW4 wne J, M%, ?Wny M m$,'y'
.~., o
, W, e
%,& g1. h(l p.. @{YG50 g , "f&y% < v r ry- ,
.r- 7
^- -
g' s O
. .'k'7 , ON _ 9./2 M9 .9 .i M .1 _10/_15/99N,,ygProje. ww cRe, rlD_RO_G_GITIS ad_.? JL@g L
WY - _ . ' h}h' . . ' .. h' 1
? a, WM C0fnpleBon Dele: 1. - _ sWDueDaleyl i 10/15/j99._=_m%%%,MDWmFMF - .m s%f m, a -r*
- p. % -f,
- @h-d W hl.d%VgE Y N 2~
r_< q- s. e& ,m, p.f .%19 n _.
M ;.W, i . @q-n u u .nyy' ds.
d,. g 3 wm,.,-. m 3-M;. g 3
m g;. .u.(
- T .gh'w y y ~ -- ~~~~ - - - z Q l _*M w 2
,J
)+ M; r,. Becquester/CIBced,l JARED.WERMJEl/NRR - gg@y%p%ygyppg&.y%pm,g jp "
~sm . ... ___+.4 o .m%o e%,-Qh_DMM_@![w , m~
w 3*
n%. k N 2d 7 u w mm t > v s ex wra g P9 2 + ff '..I '1, m ed- +ew$ nI ti g; ameeng h:#Q,}hj - .w h ;Md w k w n k cp.p[- .h =jm ij t ;3 7',y
- m - s;p[,gy ,Aw'u n,p'.;w ew sup
,mq{z t9f , ym .; - W' kM d jext y 'u'py'yg } : 3 4 zy,p 4 t g ,.;;gy;q-yyz;wn;3..3
\. x., g p'eI
- A Extension r \s .u.
m Rocqueeles3:[J# ... m/ , , .v f Extension Ogde:(l-ys~. . %, u
.- QQ6p.M,y ._._s yg /i. g_: R w iMM e$w,-c- ,- v%mm,4 w ,, w g . j xn$
s ,,1 mt ut 4. , 2 ,
M Cocle:1 zg$. 4 m wI Q&PAMNoill ar v y m n_ji MMMW WM%yW$%M ; WW MMybg.g;M~
K, \m.( s m '4;n% ..WB Qy . w wgs:vm.; pg y qQ gwwww[y_,en . n Gmg2; ,m;[ symQ: _x 5 n' ga s
- j. 9 .w..~., ._ y w y z
1, m m, au.x ge.. ,. -
A. , Tm+ .i.i,.3 > ,( e.y m, %p u1,y%rc y:w
, ~ aw.%- .+ m&a w A:.y., ,.' -.mzu N
' a .%. wh ., .,g.%. pF ,7:p; , m:>~w m .,a ;,
h I,[ r Nw%' ,'s i' p. hi.y
,,C b ,w. , If
- f. , - ],,o' 7
.' k '5 i *N . i ,O
-6 g
fi -
Q, ..wn
. .Y L f. v -
- g. 4
, . .y. f. .% [ ' p. Q ;<pw g , 1,, %. ,S;u q H,%Q .R,,'k S. . j + , +
- s ,f,Wp. -,# Q, hrf., r?,r vy,4 9,;
V b.4 f,.-,. 2
.o r. Y i , n y:2 . Q,6d'h , ~%, dQ ,&:
4 , . . -
..g.., ,,
..,m.i w.w3 qt .1 c. #-
- g. ..
\,,. &' , , .g%'p9 yJlpk:y'k'd
> f. g_;gs,*2
, 7 5,; p d . h- d' k(. .
/[l ). $.' yN g. .j
'.'[-N g' i CJ *$ a R. , b. i.Q.
1 .fqm F3 H' %.
_;, s n a #' we
> v .,e % .'Y' ',j; w ~^ , . 9 % t
..E.[ e 3 c , d wl'y'm erld-p
.. ' s%%gg[..
8), "'c ,x Wi .]r '
- *y ,h. t' ra
- r'k:
v;h, i - s% ) g m,iy aW_t m, s m gg.ygQ./ : 'N'ggg.d._
s - s. Q h .
rM 7 %,,k r:
- r. u v i
- d. . %:l~ ,tu?..%_ ) >c-u (- M er s a .ug m duc h4=
t e- + rt o l f .s l
l 4
1 l
i l
i I
I I
1 i
i L'