[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55777-55785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26780]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-247]


Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; 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. 
DPR-26 issued to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the 
licensee) for operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 
2, located in Westchester County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extension of several 
calibrations and test of instrument channels from 30 months to 37 
months. Specifically the proposed amendment would affect (a) reactor 
coolant flow transmitters; (b) containment sump level (discrete) 
Recirculation sump level (discrete); (c) Pressurizer level 
transmitters; (d) 480 volt undervoltage; (e) 6.9 kv undervoltage relays 
and 6.9 kv underfrequency relays; (f) Steam generator level--
transmitters; (g) residual heat removal (RHR) flow calibration--
transmitters; (h) Accumulator level transmitters; (i) Accumulator 
pressure transmitters; (j) Steam line pressure transmitters; (k) 
Containment sump, Recirculation sump, Reactor cavity level 
(continuous), and Containment sump (continuous); (l) Volume control 
tank level; (m) Fan

[[Page 55778]]

cooler unit (FCU) cooling flow transmitters; (n) overpressure 
protection pressure transmitters (field) Pressurizer power operated 
relief valve's; (o) Pressurizer pressure--transmitters; (p) OT[Delta]T 
and OP[Delta]T setpoint generators. Exigent circumstances exist because 
the 30-month surveillance interval for some of these instruments 
expires on October 31, 1999.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    (A) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the RCS [reactor coolant system] flow channels for 
a 30-month operating cycle was performed. A corresponding 
statistical evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month 
operating cycle has also been performed. The drift and bias thus 
calculated has been evaluated with regard to RCS flow CSA [channel 
statistical allowance] versus the Safety Analysis limits and it has 
been determined that the drift can be accommodated within the 
existing related Safety Analysis limits. It has also been determined 
that there is no general impact upon any Technical Specification 
requirements or the related Safety Analysis limits.
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (B) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. It has been concluded that there will 
be no impact upon any Technical Specification Requirement or Safety 
Analysis Limits. Of the surveillance anomalies identified since 
1986, only one impacted an instrument channel. In this instance, 
level indication continued to be maintained due to redundancy.
    As added assurance, the current Indian Point Unit 2 Technical 
Specifications require a channel check be performed every shift, 
providing a means to monitor the channels for gross failure.
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits remains unchanged and provides 
assurance that plant protective functions will occur as required. It 
is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 
24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the channels will not result 
in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (C) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the 
transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been 
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel 
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months) 
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitter projected at 
37 months, the sum is accommodated by the channel uncertainty 
calculations. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 
months is valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is 
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter 
is calibrated at 37 months.
    It can also be concluded that sufficient allowance exists 
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the 
licensing basis Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the channel 
statistical error resulting from a 37 month operating cycle (with a 
rack calibration at 24 months plus 25%).
    The existing allowance between the Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. Thus, the Channel 
Statistical Allowance for 37 months can be accommodated without 
impacting the Incensing basis Safety Analysis.
    It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance 
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter 
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (D) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the 480 volt under voltage and degraded voltage 
relay channels for a 30-month operating cycle was performed. A 
corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift over a 
37-month operating cycle has also been performed. The drift thus 
calculated has been evaluated with regard to the original CSA and 
has been found to be bounded by the CSA value. In addition, the 
relay setpoints have been compared with the Safety Analysis limits 
and it has been determined that the drift and bias can be 
accommodated within the existing related Safety Analysis limits. It 
has also been determined that there is no general impact upon any 
Technical Specification requirements or the related Safety Analysis 
limits.
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the 480 volt under voltage and degraded 
voltage relays will not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (E) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the 6.9 kV under voltage and Under Frequency relay 
channels for a 30-month operating cycle was performed. Corresponding 
statistical evaluations of the projected drifts over a 37-month 
operating cycle has also been performed. It has been confirmed that 
the drifts for 37 months will be no greater than the drifts 
projected for 30 months. The drifts thus calculated have been 
evaluated with regard to under voltage and under frequency set 
points versus the Safety Analysis limits and it has been determined 
that the drift can be accommodated within the existing related 
Safety Analysis limits with no decrease in margin. It has also been 
determined that there is no general impact upon any Technical 
Specification requirements of the related Safety Analysis limits.
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that hanging the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the under voltage and under frequency 
relays will not result in a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (F) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the 
transmitters over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been 
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel 
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months) 
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitter projected at 
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original CSA at 30 months. 
Therefore, the channel uncertainty

[[Page 55779]]

derived for 30 months is valid for a 37-month operating cycle 
providing the rack is calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) 
frequency and the transmitter is calibrated at 37 months. It has 
been demonstrated that sufficient allowance exists between the 
existing Technical Specification limits and the licensing basis 
Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the channel statistical error 
resulting from a 37 month operating cycle (with a rack calibration 
at 24 months plus 25%).
    The existing allowance between the Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitters will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (G) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the 
transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been 
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel 
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months) 
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitter projected at 
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original projection at 30 
months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is 
valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is 
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter 
is calibrated at 37 months.
    The proposed change does not affect the existing Safety Analysis 
limit nor any Technical Specification limits. Plant equipment will 
function as before, in order to preserve Safety Analysis limits.
    It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance 
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitters 
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (H) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the accumulator level channels for a 30-month 
operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical 
evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month operating cycle 
has also been performed. It has been confirmed that the drift, 
including bias, for 37 months will be bounded by the CSA originally 
calculated for 30 months. The drift thus calculated has been 
evaluated with regard to level setpoints, versus the Safety Analysis 
limits and it has been determined that the drift, including bias, 
can be accommodated within the existing related Safety Analysis 
limits. It has also been determined that there is no general impact 
upon any Technical Specification requirements or the related Safety 
Analysis limits.
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (I) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the accumulator pressure channels for a 30-month 
operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical 
evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month operating cycle 
has also been performed. It has been confirmed that the drift for 37 
months will be no greater than the drift projected for 30 months. 
The drift thus calculated has been evaluated with regard to 
accumulator pressure setpoints versus the Safety Analysis limits and 
it has been determined that the drift can be accommodated within the 
existing related Safety Analysis limits. It has also been determined 
that there is no general impact upon any Technical Specification 
requirements or the related Safety Analysis limits.
    The accumulators are passive engineered safety features since 
gas forces injection and no external source of power or signal 
transmission is needed to obtain fast-acting, high-flow capability 
when injection is required. One accumulator is attached to each of 
the four cold legs of the reactor coolant system.
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (J) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the steam line pressure channels for a 30-month 
operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical 
evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month operating cycle 
has also been performed. It has been confirmed that the drift for 37 
months will be no greater than the drift projected for 30 months. 
The drift thus calculated has been evaluated with regard to steam 
line pressure setpoints versus the Safety Analysis limits and it has 
been determined that the drift can be accommodated within the 
existing related Safety Analysis limits. It has also been determined 
that there is no general impact upon any Technical Specification 
requirements or the related Safety Analysis limits. The existing 
margin between the Technical Specification limits and the Safety 
Analysis limits provides assurance that plant protective functions 
will occur as required. It is therefore concluded that changing the 
surveillance interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the 
transmitter will not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (K) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift and 
bias of the transmitters over a 37-month operating cycle has 
currently been performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder 
of the channels (calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency 
of 24 months is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitters 
projected at 37 months, the sum does not exceed the original 
projections at 30 months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived 
for 30 months is valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the 
rack is calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the 
transmitters are calibrated at 37 months. The sump level indications 
are provided to the control room by both magnetic switch/float-type 
detectors (series of 5 lights provide discrete level indication) and 
differential pressure transmitter (continuous level indication) 
which encompasses redundancy and diversity associated with 
containment sump level monitoring.
    The existing allowance between the Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. No change in these 
allowances has occurred due to the proposed revision in surveillance 
interval of the transmitters.
    It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance 
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter 
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (L) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the 
channel over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been 
performed. It has been confirmed that the channel drift for a 37-
month interval is bounded by the existing drift allowance used in 
the current uncertainty calculations. Therefore, the channel 
uncertainty derived for 30 months is valid for a 37-month operating 
cycle. There are no nominal setpoints within the Technical 
Specifications for the level of the Volume Control Tank nor are 
there any applicable Safety Analysis Limits. Thus, the Channel 
Statistical Allowance for 37 months can be accommodated without 
impacting the licensing basis Safety Analysis.
    It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance 
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter 
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

[[Page 55780]]

    (M) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of 
uncertainties for the FCU [fan cooler unit] flow channels for a 30-
month operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical 
evaluation of the projected drift of the transmitters over a 37-
month operating cycle has also been performed. When drift of the 
remainder of the channel (calibrated at 24 months) is combined with 
the drift and bias of the transmitter at 37 months, the sum does not 
exceed the original projection at 30 months. Therefore, the channel 
uncertainty derived for 30 months is valid for a 37 month operating 
cycle providing the rack is calibrated at the 24 month (plus 25%) 
frequency and the transmitter is calibrated at 37 months. In 
addition, the flow controllers to the Fan Cooling Units have had 
their low flow setpoints raised to provide operators with earlier 
alarms associated with FCU system flow degradation.
    It has been determined that there is no general impact upon any 
Technical Specification requirements or related Safety Analysis 
limits. The Indian Point Unit 2 Technical Specification does not 
specify a specific setpoint. It is therefore concluded that changing 
the surveillance interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for 
the transmitter will not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (N) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. Statistical analyses of OPS [over 
pressure protection] pressure and PORV [power operated relief valve] 
channel uncertainties for a 30 month operating cycle were previously 
performed.
    A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of 
the OPS pressure transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has 
currently been performed. It has been confirmed that when the 
transmitter drift for a 37-month interval is determined it is 
bounded by the existing drift allowance used in the uncertainty 
calculations. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the 
channel (calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 
months) is combined with the drift of the transmitter projected at 
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original projection at 30 
months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is 
valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is 
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter 
is calibrated at 37 months.
    Similarly, a statistical evaluation of the projected drift of 
the PORV channel over a 37 month operating cycle has currently been 
performed. It has been confirmed that the channel drift for a 37-
month interval is bounded by the existing drift allowance used in 
the current uncertainty calculations. Therefore, the channel 
uncertainty derived for thirty months is valid for a 37 month-
operating cycle.
    It can also be concluded that sufficient allowance exists 
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the 
licensing basis Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the channel 
statistical errors resulting from a 37 month operating cycle.
    The existing allowance between the Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the OPS pressure transmitter and the 
PORV channels will not result in a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    (O) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the 
transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been 
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel 
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months) 
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitters projected at 
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original projection at 30 
months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is 
valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is 
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter 
is calibrated at 37 months. It can also be concluded that sufficient 
allowance exists between the existing Technical Specification limits 
and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the 
channel statistical error resulting from a 37 month operating cycle 
(with a rack calibration at 24 months plus 25%).
    The existing allowance between the Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (P) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel 
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed. 
The OT[Delta]T/OP[Delta]T uncertainty calculations of record for Con 
Ed are derived from PC-R1A, PC-R1B, and PT-Q52. Of these, the 
quarterly surveillance performed via PT-Q52 provides the governing 
uncertainty allowances because it performs a functional check of the 
complete channel from rack input through output (bistable) every 90 
days. This includes the R/E converters, E/I converters, I/I 
converters, OT[Delta]T setpoint generators, OP[Delta]T setpoint 
generators, OP[Delta]T impulse lag modules, and the bistables. If a 
problem is detected in PT-Q52, other procedures (PC-RIA, PC-RIB, PT-
VIIA) are invoked to perform thorough evaluation and recalibration, 
as necessary. Therefore, the rack drift allowance incorporated in 
the OT[Delta]T and OP[Delta]T setpoint calculations are based on the 
performance of PT-Q52. Thus, continued performance of PT-Q52 on a 
quarterly basis, even in conjunction with the one time extension of 
PC-EM37, provides assurance that all modules are performing 
correctly.
    Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is 
valid for a 37-month operating cycle since the rack components are 
checked on a quarterly frequency. It can also be concluded that 
sufficient margin exists between the existing Technical 
Specification limits and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limits 
to accommodate the channel statistical error resulting from a 37 
month operating cycle (with a rack calibration at 24 months plus 
25%).
    The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits 
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant 
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore 
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months 
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    (A) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
reactor coolant system flow instrumentation functions. The proposed 
change in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance 
interval for the transmitters will not result in a channel 
statistical allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore 
the margin between the existing Technical Specification limits and 
the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally 
set at (or more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, 
will provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis 
limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from 
occurring.
    (B) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance 
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the Containment 
sump level and Recirculation Sump Level instrumentation functions. 
Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more 
conservatively than) Technical Specification

[[Page 55781]]

limits, will provide protective functions to assure that Safety 
Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated 
from occurring.
    (C) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance, interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
Pressurizer Level instrumentation functions. The proposed change in 
operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval for 
the transmitters will not result in a channel statistical allowance 
which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin between 
the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety Analysis 
limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more 
conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will provide 
protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded.
    This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (D) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
480 Volt under voltage or degraded voltage instrumentation 
functions. The proposed change in operating cycle length due to an 
increased surveillance interval for the relays will not result in a 
channel statistical allowance which exceeds the current margin and 
therefore the margin between the existing Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will 
be nominally set at (or more conservatively than) Technical 
Specification limits, will provide protective functions to assure 
that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated from occurring.
    (E) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance 
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 6.9 kV Under 
Voltage and Under Frequency instrumentation functions. The proposed 
change in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance 
interval for the relays will not result in a channel statistical 
allowance which reduces the margin between the existing Technical 
Specification limits and the Safety Analysis limits. Plant 
equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more conservatively 
than) Technical Specification limits, will provide protective 
functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. 
This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (F) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
steam generator level instrumentation functions. The proposed change 
in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval 
for the transmitter will not result in a channel statistical 
allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore will not 
exceed the margin between the existing Technical Specification 
limits and the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will 
be nominally set at (or more conservatively than) Technical 
Specification limits, will provide protective functions to assure 
that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated from occurring.
    (G) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Finial Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
RHR [Residual Heat Removal] Flow instrumentation functions. The 
proposed change in operating cycle length due to an increased 
surveillance interval for the transmitter will not impact any 
Technical Specification limit or Safety Analysis limit. Plant 
protective functions will occur as designed.
    This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (H) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
accumulator level instrumentation functions. The proposed change in 
operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval for 
the level transmitters will not result in a channel statistical 
allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin 
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety 
Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or 
more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will 
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits 
are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from 
occurring.
    (I) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
accumulator pressure instrumentation functions. The proposed change 
in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval 
for the transmitters will not result in a channel statistical 
allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin 
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety 
Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or 
more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will 
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits 
are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from 
occurring.
    (J) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
steam line pressure instrumentation functions. The proposed change 
in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval 
for the relays will not result in a channel statistical allowance 
which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin between 
the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety Analysis 
limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more 
conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will provide 
protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (K) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different

[[Page 55782]]

type of equipment, nor does it involve operating equipment required 
for safe operation of the facility in a manner that is different 
from that addressed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The 
proposed change in operating cycle length due to an increased 
surveillance interval for the transmitters will not result in a 
channel statistical allowance which impacts the current margin 
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety 
Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or 
more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will 
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits 
are not exceeded.
    This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (L) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. There are no nominal setpoints 
within the Technical Specifications for the level of the Volume 
Control Tank nor are there any applicable Safety Analysis Limits. 
Thus, the Channel Statistical Allowance for 37 months can be 
accommodated without impacting the licensing basis Safety Analysis.
    Other Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more 
conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will continue 
to provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis 
limits are riot exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from 
occurring.
    (M) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
    The proposed change in surveillance interval for the transmitter 
will not result in any impact upon existing Technical Specifications 
or Safety Analysis. Therefore, plant equipment will continue to 
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits 
are not exceeded.
    This will prevent the possibility a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (N) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance 
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the PORV 
Actuation/Reclosure and Overpressure Protection System (OPS) 
instrumentation functions. The proposed change in operating cycle 
length due to an increased surveillance interval will not result in 
channel statistical allowance which exceeds current margins and 
therefore, the margins between existing Technical Specification 
limits and Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be 
nominally set at (or more conservatively than) Technical 
Specification limits, will provide protective functions to assure 
that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated from occurring.
    (O) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased 
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 
Pressurizer Pressure channel instrumentation functions. The proposed 
change in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance 
interval for the transmitter will not result in a channel 
statistical allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore 
the margin between the existing Technical Specification limits and 
the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally 
set at (or more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, 
will provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis 
limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from 
occurring.
    (P) The proposed license amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the 
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it 
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the 
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance 
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the OP/OT 
[Delta]T instrumentation functions since these loop functions are 
checked on a quarterly basis under PT-Q52. The proposed change in 
operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval for 
the setpoint generators will not result in a channel statistical 
allowance which exceeds the current margin. It can also be concluded 
that sufficient margin exists between the existing Technical 
Specification limits and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limits 
to accommodate the channel statistical error resulting from a 37 
month operating cycle (with a rack calibration at 24 months plus 
25%).
    This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
    (3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    (A) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by 
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (B) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The surveillance 
anomalies noted did not render the level indication system non-
operational. Therefore, based on the redundancy and the reliability 
of the system, extension of the surveillance interval for a maximum 
of seven months for these tests would have little affect on the 
reliability of the discrete level indication systems. The historical 
data supports the conclusion that the margin of safety will not be 
compromised by extending the interval between tests on a one-time 
basis to a maximum of 37 months. Based on past test results, the 
one-time extension of six months does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    (C) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds any 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Thus, the Channel Statistical Allowance for 37 months can 
be accommodated without impacting the licensing basis Safety 
Analysis. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by 
six months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (D) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension

[[Page 55783]]

of the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of 
any safety related system, component or structure and does not 
result in increased severity of any of the accidents considered in 
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test 
results, the one'-time extension of six months does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    (E) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which impacts the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of seven months does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    (F) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by 
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (G) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which affects the 
margin between any current Technical Specification limit and any 
licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective functions will 
occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. Therefore, 
the proposed change for a one-time extension of the test interval 
does not adversely affect the performance of any safety related 
system, component or structure and does not result in increased 
severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report. In conclusion, based upon the recently 
completed 37 month drift value being less than the existing 24 month 
drift value, the one-time extension of the surveillance interval for 
the transmitter for seven months does not involve a significant 
increase in a margin of safety.
    (H) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitter by 
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (I) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin existing between the current Technical Specification limit 
and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective functions 
will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. 
Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of the test 
interval does not adversely affect the performance of any safety 
related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitter by 
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (J) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitter by 
six months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (K) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which impacts any 
margin which exits between the current Technical Specification 
limits and the licensing basis Safety Analysis Limits. Therefore, 
protective functions will continue to occur unchanged so that Safety 
Analysis limits are not exceeded. There is no reduction in the 
margin between any existing Technical Specification limit and its 
related Safety Analysis limit. Therefore, the proposed change for a 
one-time extension of the calibration and test interval does not 
adversely affect the performance of any safety related system, 
component or structure and does result in increased severity of any 
of the accidents considered in the Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report. Based on past test results, the one-time extension of the 
surveillance frequency for the channel transmitters does not involve 
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    (L) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which impacts any 
Technical Specification limits nor any licensing basis Safety 
Analysis limit. Protective functions will continue to occur so that 
Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. There are no nominal 
setpoints within the Technical Specifications for the level of the 
Volume Control Tank nor are there any applicable Safety Analysis 
Limits.
    Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of the 
test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of seven months for calibration of the channel does 
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    (M) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    Because the change in surveillance interval resulting from an 
increased operating cycle will not impact the margin which exists 
between current Technical Specification limits and licensing basis 
Safety Analysis limits, protective functions will continue to occur 
so that Safety Analysis limits are not affected. In addition, the 
flow controllers to the Fan Cooling Units have had their low flow 
setpoints raised to provide operators with an earlier warning 
associated with FCU system flow degradation. Therefore, the proposed 
change for a one-time extension of the transmitter surveillance 
interval does not adversely affect the performance of any safety 
related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report.
    (N) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin existing between the current Technical Specification limit 
and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective functions 
will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. 
Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of the 
calibration intervals does not adversely

[[Page 55784]]

affect the performance of any safety related system, component or 
structure and does not result in increased severity of any of the 
accidents considered in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. 
Based on past test results, the one-time extension of seven months 
for the OPS transmitters and six months for PORV set point 
calibrations does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (O) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by 
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    (P) The proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in 
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle 
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the 
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification 
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective 
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not 
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of 
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any 
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in 
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated 
Final Safety Analysis Report. The OP/OT [Delta]T instrumentation 
loop functions are checked on a quarterly basis under PT-Q52. Based 
on past test results, the one-time extension of six months does 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 14 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 14-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 14-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 
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 November 15, 1999, 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 White Plains Library, 100 Martin Avenue, 
White Plains, New York 10610. 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.

[[Page 55785]]

    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 Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq., 4 Irving 
Place, New York, New York 10003, 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 April 21, 1999, 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 White Plains Library, 100 Martine Avenue, 
White Plains, New York 10610.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jefferey F. Harold,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-26780 Filed 10-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P