[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62228-62230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29845]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-410]


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 2 (NMP2), 
located in the town of Scriba, Oswego County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would change ACTION statement ``d'' of 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.6.1.2, titled ``Primary Containment 
Leakage,'' and ACTION statement ``b'' of TS 3.6.1.7, titled ``Primary 
Containment Purge System,'' to allow an alternative approach to the 
existing requirements contained in these statements. The alternative 
approach would allow isolation of a bypass leakage path and/or a purge 
system line by use of one closed and de-activated automatic valve, 
closed manual valve, or blind flange in lieu of restoring inoperable 
isolation valve(s) on TS Table 3.6.1.2-1, titled ``Allowable Leak Rates 
Through Valves in Potential Bypass Leakage Paths,'' and/or isolation 
valve(s) listed in Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.6.1.7, 
titled ``Primary Containment Purge System'' to OPERABLE status. 
Consistent with the alternative approach provided in these ACTION 
statements, changes are also proposed for Definition 1.31, titled 
``Primary Containment Integrity'' and footnote (*) of Table 3.6.1.2-1, 
titled ``Allowable Leak Rates Through Valves in Potential Bypass 
Leakage Paths.'' The proposed changes affect valves that are purge 
system line isolation valves with resilient seals and/or isolation 
valves for potential bypass leakage paths. The proposed alternative is 
consistent with NUREG-1434, the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications.
    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.

[[Page 62229]]

    The proposed change to the ACTION statements of Specifications 
3.6.1.2 and 3.6.1.7 and Definition 1.31.d will allow continued 
operation if a potential bypass leakage path and/or a purge system 
line is reduced within leakage limits by one closed and de-activated 
automatic valve, closed manual valve, or blind flange. The proposed 
change to the ACTION statements also addresses the effects of 
isolating a bypass leakage path and/or a purge system line by 
requiring entry into applicable ACTION statements for the affected 
LCOs. Since these isolation provisions and their affects on other 
plant systems are not assumed to be initiators of any design basis 
accident or transient, this change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The isolation barrier would continue to satisfy the applicable 
leakage requirements for purge valves with resilient seals, 
potential bypass leakage pathways and LCO 3.6.1.2. Operation of the 
unit would reflect the limitations imposed by entry into applicable 
ACTION statements for LCOs affected by isolation of a bypass leakage 
path and/or a purge system line. Therefore, the radiological 
consequences of the proposed change to the ACTION statements are not 
increased when compared to the current licensing basis of NMP2. 
Accordingly, this change does not involve a significant increase in 
the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to footnote (*) of Table 3.6.1.2-1 would 
allow the leakage rate through a penetration flow path to be the 
actual pathway leakage in lieu of the maximum pathway leakage, 
provided the penetration is isolated by one closed and de-activated 
automatic valve, closed manual valve, or blind flange. Since 
[neither] an isolated penetration nor the leakage through the 
isolated penetration is assumed to be the initiator of an accident, 
this change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    While the leakage through an individual valve in a penetration 
can be exceeding the leakage assumed in the accident analysis, the 
penetration is isolated by a single active failure proof method; 
thus the leakage through the isolated penetration is the actual 
leakage through the valve or blind flange used to isolate the 
penetration, not the leakage through the valve with the maximum 
leakage. The leakage of the affected isolated penetration when 
combined with remaining applicable potential bypass leakage paths 
will continue to satisfy the leakage limits of 3.6 SCFH [standard 
cubic feet per hour] as stated in footnote (*) and the applicable 
leakage limit(s) of LCO 3.6.1.2. Therefore, this change does 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 does not introduce any new failure modes. 
The proposed change allows the use of isolation barriers that cannot 
be adversely affected by a single active failure such as a closed 
and de-activated automatic valve, closed manual valve, or blind 
flange. These isolation barriers are not affected by a single 
failure since they do not have to change state to perform their 
safety function. A valve which contains resilient seals that 
isolates a purge system line would continue to be leak tested on a 
periodic basis to provide early indication of resilient material 
seal degradation. Therefore, since the proposed change ensures that 
the containment boundary, isolation of potential bypass leakage 
paths and isolation of purge system lines with a valve that contains 
resilient seals is maintained by appropriate methods and appropriate 
ACTION(s) are entered for applicable LCOs, operation with this 
proposed change will 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 2, in accordance with 
the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.
    This change ensures that the safety function of the primary 
containment and its associated bypass leakage paths and/or purge 
system lines is maintained and the affects of the isolation approach 
are properly addressed by entering applicable ACTION statements. The 
isolation approach which includes one closed and de-activated 
automatic valve, closed manual valve, or blind flange will isolate 
bypass leakage paths and/or purge system lines to ensure leakage is 
within limits and cannot be adversely affected by a single active 
failure. Furthermore, a benefit is gained by reducing unnecessary 
plant shutdown transients when compensatory measures exist to ensure 
that the containment boundary, isolation of potential bypass leakage 
paths and isolation of purge system lines with a valve that contains 
resilient seals is maintained. Therefore, operation in accordance 
with the proposed amendment 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 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 December 16, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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.

[[Page 62230]]

    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 November 8, 1999, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Darl S. Hood, Sr.,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-29845 Filed 11-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P