[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15310-15311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7185]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-410]
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendment To Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-69 issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) for
operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, located in Oswego
County, New York.
The proposed amendment would revise the Nine Mile Point Nuclear
Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). Specifically, TS
4.6.1.2. a would be modified to allow the second Primary Containment
Integrated Leakage Rate Test (Type A) to be performed at the fifth
refueling outage (RF-05) or 72 months after the first Type A test
instead of the fourth refueling outage (RF-04) as currently scheduled.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
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 from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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:
1. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, in accordance with
the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change for performance of the second Type A test
until RF-05 does not increase the probability of a previously
analyzed accident occurring. Primary containment leakage is not the
precursor to any analyzed event. Type A testing is done to confirm
the ability of the primary containment to limit leakage consistent
with the safety analysis assumptions. Therefore, a change in the
test interval will not result in an increase in the probability of
an accident previously analyzed. This has also been confirmed by the
risk assessment described above [in amendment proposal].
Extension of the second Type A test will not affect the
containment's ability to maintain leakage below that assumed in the
safety analysis. The previous Type A test was completed
successfully, and there have been no plant modifications (other than
those that required Type B or C testing) since the last test which
could directly affect the test results. Type B and C testing of
individual penetrations has been satisfactory and will continue to
be performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications. There
have been no pressure or temperature excursions in the containment
which could have adversely affected containment integrity. Hence,
the ability of the containment to maintain leakage within the Type A
test limits will be maintained. This testing provides assurance that
the consequences of radioactive leakage area within 10CFR100 and
GDC-19 limits. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, in accordance with
the proposed amendment, will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change for performance of the second Type A test
until RF-05 will not affect the test methodology or acceptance
criteria nor does it alter the physical containment structure or
boundary in any way. There will be no addition or removal of plant
hardware. No new plant operating modes are being introduced. The
primary containment will continue to perform its accident mitigation
function of minimizing leakage of radioactivity to the secondary
containment. Results of the previous Type A tests are well below
allowable limits, and there have been no plant modifications since
the last test nor are any planned that could directly impact the
previous Type A test results. The primary containment performs a
mitigation function and is not an initiator of any analyzed event. A
risk assessment was performed which indicates that deferral of the
Type A ILRT will not result in any new accident scenarios.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility
of a new or different accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, in accordance with
the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
Safety margins are established through the Nine Mile Point Unit
2 safety analyses as reflected in the Technical Specification
Limiting Conditions for Operation. Containment leak rates assumed in
the safety analyses are not increased by the proposed change to the
surveillance interval. The acceptance criteria which must be met to
verify that leak rates remain within assumed values will also not be
changed.
Although the interval between the first and second Type A tests
is 72 months, no plant modifications have been made nor are planned
which would invalidate past leak test results which confirm
acceptable containment integrity. Furthermore, Type B and C testing
of individual penetrations has been satisfactory and will continue
to be performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications to
assure that containment integrity is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
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.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this
action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, [[Page 15311]] Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. To 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the
NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By April 24, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Reference and Documents Department,
Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York. If a
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by
the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,
designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition;
and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy
the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a
brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be
one which , if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be
permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following
message addressed to Ledyard B. Marsh: petitioner's name and telephone
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and
page number of this Federal Register. A copy of the petition should
also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Mark J. Wetterhahn,
Esquire, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-
3502, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 9, 1995, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Reference and Documents Department,
Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 13126.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gordon E. Edison,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate 1-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-7185 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M