[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43432-43434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21725]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 410]


Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; 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, Unit 1, located in 
Oswego County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 3/
4.2.3 regarding reactor coolant chemistry in accordance with a report 
by Electrical Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI) TR-103515-R1, ``BWR 
Water Chemistry Guidelines, 1996 Revision,'' also known as Boiling 
Water Reactor Vessel and Internals Project (BWRVIP)-29. Specifically, 
the amendment would define new conductivity limits in TS 3.2.3a (when 
reactor coolant is 200 degrees F or more and reactor thermal power is 
no more that 10%), and in TS 3.2.3b (when reactor thermal power exceeds 
10%). The new conductivity limits would be 1 micro-mho/cm, which is 
less than the existing limits of 2 micro-mho/cm and 5 micro-mho/cm. The 
chloride ion limit in TS 3.2.3a, 0.1 ppm, would remain at this value 
but would be designated as 100 ppb. The chloride ion limit in TS 3.2.3b 
would be changed from 0.2 ppm to 20 ppb. Sulfate ion limits would be 
added to TS 3.2.3a and TS 3.2.3b at 100 ppb and 20 ppb, respectively. 
The proposed change to TS 3.2.3a would require that the reactor coolant 
water shall not exceed these new limits specified in TS 3.2.3a for 
conductivity, chloride ion, or sulfate ion for more than 24 hours when 
the coolant temperature is equal to or greater than 200 degrees F and 
the reactor thermal power is no more than 10 percent, or a shutdown 
shall be initiated within 1 hour and the reactor shall be shutdown and 
reactor coolant temperature reduced to below 200 degrees F within 10 
hours. Similarly, TS 3.2.3b would require that the reactor coolant 
water not exceed the new limits specified in TS 3.2.3b for more than 24 
hours when reactor thermal power exceeds 10 percent, or a shutdown 
shall be initiated within 1 hour and the reactor shall be shutdown and 
reactor coolant temperature reduced to less than 200 degrees F within 
10 hours. TS

[[Page 43433]]

3.2.3c would be changed to state: ``In no case shall the reactor 
coolant exceed the following limits at the specified conditions or a 
shutdown shall be initiated within 1 hour and the reactor shall be 
shutdown and reactor coolant temperature be reduced to less than 200 
degrees F within 10 hours: (1) With reactor coolant temperature at or 
above 200 degrees F, the conductivity has a maximum limit of 5 micro-
mho/cm, or (2) With reactor coolant temperature at or above 200 degrees 
F and reactor thermal power no more than 10 percent, the maximum limit 
of chloride or sulfate ion concentration is 200 ppb, or (3) With 
reactor thermal power greater than 10 percent, the maximum limit of 
chloride or sulfate ion concentration is 100 ppb.'' Existing TS 3.2.3d 
would be revised to require that ``If the continuous conductivity 
monitor is inoperable for more than 7 days, a shutdown shall be 
initiated within 1 hour and the reactor shall be shutdown and reactor 
coolant temperature be reduced to below 200 degrees F within 24 
hours''. A new TS 3.2.3e would be added to require that ``If the 
ability to analyze a sample for both chloride and sulfate ions is lost 
for more than 24 hours, coincident with reactor water conductivity 
being more than 0.19 micro-mho/cm for more than 24 hours, a shutdown 
shall be initiated within 1 hour and the reactor shall be shutdown and 
reactor coolant temperature reduced to below 200 degrees F within 24 
hours.'' A new TS 3.2.3f would be added to require that ``If the 
ability to analyze for conductivity and chloride and sulfate ion 
concentration is lost for more than 24 hours, a shutdown shall be 
initiated within 1 hour and the reactor shall be shutdown and reactor 
coolant temperature reduced to below 200 degrees F within 10 hours.'' 
TS 4.2.3 would be revised to add that the samples taken and analyzed 
for conductivity and chloride ion content are also to be analyzed for 
sulfate ion content. The sampling frequency specified in TS 4.2.3 would 
be increased from ``at least 3 times per week with a maximum time of 96 
hours between samples'' to ``daily.'' TS Bases 3/4.2.3 would also be 
changed to reflect that the purpose of TS 3/4.2.3 is to limit 
intergranular stress corrosion cracking crack growth rates to values 
consistent with Nine Mile Point Unit 1 (NMP1) core shroud analyses in 
accordance with an NRC letter dated May 8, 1997, and to describe the 
NMP1 operating philosophy of maintaining levels (averaged over an 
operating cycle) for conductivity, chloride and sulfate concentration 
to values that ensure the crack growth rate is bounded by the core 
shroud analysis.
    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 1, in accordance with 
the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The changes to the conductivity and chloride ion action levels 
and the addition of sulfate ion levels in reactor water chemistry 
are being made to make the TS and TS Bases consistent with the 
values used in the core shroud vertical weld cracking evaluations. 
These new values reflect NMPC's [Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation's] 
commitment to Table 4-4 of the ``Electric Power Research Institute 
(EPRI) BWR Water Chemistry Guidelines--1996 Revision'' (TR-103515-
R1, BWRVIP-29) and are equal to or more restrictive than the present 
TS values. No physical modification of the plant is involved and no 
changes to the methods in which plant systems are operated are 
required. None of the precursors of previously evaluated accidents 
are affected and therefore, the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. These changes to the coolant 
chemistry TS provide more restrictive limits. No new failure modes 
are introduced. Therefore, these changes will not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, 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 changes to the conductivity and chloride ion action levels 
and the addition of sulfate ion levels in reactor water chemistry 
are being made to make the TS and TS Bases consistent with the 
values used in the core shroud vertical weld cracking evaluations. 
The new values reflect NMPC's commitment to Table 4-4 of the EPRI 
BWR water chemistry guidelines, and are equal to or more restrictive 
than the present TS values. No physical modification of the plant is 
involved and no changes to the methods in which plant systems are 
operated are required. The changes do not introduce any new failure 
modes or conditions that may create a new or different accident. 
Therefore, these changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident [from any accident] previously evaluated.
    3. The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 1, in accordance with 
the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.
    The changes to the conductivity and chloride ion action levels 
and the addition of sulfate ion levels in reactor water chemistry 
are being made to make the TS and TS Bases consistent with the 
values used in the core shroud vertical weld cracking evaluations. 
These new values reflect NMPC's commitment to Table 4-4 of the EPRI 
BWR water chemistry guidelines, and are equal to or more restrictive 
than the present TS values. No physical modification of the plant is 
involved and no changes to the methods in which plant systems are 
operated are required. The changes do not adversely affect any 
physical barrier to the release of radiation to plant personnel or 
the public. Therefore, these changes do 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 Chief, Rules and

[[Page 43434]]

Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of 
this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to 
Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
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 September 10, 1998, 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 13126. 
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 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 July 16, 1998, 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. 
This notice supersedes a previous notice (62 FR 40851, published July 
30, 1997) which was based upon an amendment request dated July 2, 1997. 
The request dated July 2, 1997 was superseded in its entirety by the 
amendment request dated July 16, 1998.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July, 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Darl S. Hood,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-21725 Filed 8-12-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P