[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