[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10565-10567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4582]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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-

[[Page 10566]]

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 revise Technical Specifications (TSs) 
associated with the degraded voltage trip and the under-frequency 
reactor trip surveillance tests. For the degraded voltage trip, the 
proposed amendment would revise TS to specify detailed operator actions 
to be taken if the minimum conditions could not be met rather than 
simply stating ``Cold Shutdown.'' The 6.9 kV under-frequency and 
reactor trip surveillance tests currently combine voltage and frequency 
testing under one item. The proposed TS amendment would separate the 
6.9 kV voltage testing from the frequency testing and specify separate 
test requirements. In addition, the proposed TS amendment would require 
more frequent testing of the 480 volt emergency bus undervoltage 
reactor trip.
    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:

    The proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration because:
    1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?
    No. This proposed change is administrative in nature. This 
change does not affect possible initiating events for accidents 
previously evaluated or alter the configuration or operation of the 
facility. The Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits 
specified in the current Technical Specifications remain unchanged. 
Therefore, the proposed change would not involve a significant 
increase the probability or in the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    No. This proposed change is administrative in nature. The safety 
analysis of the facility remains complete and accurate. There are no 
physical changes to the facility and the plant conditions for which 
the design basis accidents have been evaluated are still valid. 
Consequently no new failure modes are introduced as a result of the 
proposed change. Therefore, the proposed change would not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Does the poposed amendment involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    No. This proposed change is administrative in nature. Since 
there are no changes to the operation or the physical design of the 
facility, the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) design 
basis, accident assumptions, or Technical specification Bases are 
not affected. Therefore, the proposed change 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 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 March 29, 2000, 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.
    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

[[Page 10567]]

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 Mr. Brent L. Brandenburg, Assistant 
General Counsel, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., 4 
Irving Place--1822, New York, NY 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.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 26, 1999, as supplemented on 
January 20, 2000, 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 22nd day of February 2000.
    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. 00-4582 Filed 2-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P