ML17059A754
| ML17059A754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1995 |
| From: | Edison G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17059A755 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9503300173 | |
| Download: ML17059A754 (18) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-410 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENS PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-69 issued to Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (the licensee) for operation of the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, located in Oswego County, New York.
The proposed amendment would revise the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2, Technical Specifications (TSs).
Specifically, TS 4.6. 1.2.a would be modified to allow the second Primary Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test (Type A) to be performed at the fifth refueling outage (RF-05) or 72 months after the first Type A test instead of the fourth refueling outage (RF-04) as currently scheduled.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 9503300173 950317 PDR RDOCK 05000410 P
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 operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change for performance of the second Type A test until RF-05 does not increase the probability of a previously analyzed accident occurring.
Primary containment leakage is not the precursor to any analyzed event.
Type A testing is done to confirm the ability of the primary containment to limit leakage consistent with the safety analysis assumptions.
Therefore, a change in the test interval will not result in an increase in the probability of~
an accident previously analyzed.
This has also been confirmed by
.'he risk assessment described above I'in amendment proposal].
Extension of the second Type A test will not affect the containment's ability to maintain leakage below that assumed in the safety analysis.
The previous Type A test was completed successfully, and there have been no plant modifications (other than
, those that required Type B or C testing) since the last test which could directly affect the test results.
Type 8 and C testing of individual penetrations has been satisfactory and will continue to be performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
There have been no pressure or temperature excursions in the containment which could have adversely affected containment integrity.
- Hence, the ability of the containment to maintain leakage within the Type A test limits will be maintained.
This testing provides assurance that the consequences of radioactive leakage are within 10CFR100 and GDC-19 limits.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change for performance of the second Type A test until RF-05 will not affect the test methodology or acceptance criteria nor does it alter the physical containment structur e or boundary in any way.
There will be no addition or removal of plant hardware.
No new plant operating modes are being introduced.
The primary containment will continue to perform its accident mitigation function of minimizing leakage of radioactivity to the secondary
containment.
Results of the previous Type A tests are well below allowable limits, and there have been no plant modifications since the last test nor are any planned that could directly impact the previous Type A test results.
The primary containment performs a
mitigation function and is not an initiator of any analyzed event.
A risk assessment was performed which indicates that deferral of the Type A ILRT will not result in any new accident scenarios.
Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different accident from any previously evaluated.
3.
The operation of Nine Mile Point Unit 2, in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Safety margins are established through the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 safety analyses as reflected in the Technical Specification Limiting Conditions for Operation.
Containment leak rates assumed in the safety analyses are not increased by the proposed change to the surveillance interval.
The acceptance criteria which must be met $o verify that leak rates remain within assumed values will also not Ije changed.
Although the interval between the first arid second Type A tests is 72 months, no plant modifications have been made nor are planned which would invalidate past leak test results which confirm acceptable containment integrity.
Furthermore, Type B and C testing of individual penetrations has been'satisfactory and will continue to be performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications to assure that containment integrity is maintained.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis
- and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
- However, should circumstances change during the r
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.'he Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
- Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Written comments may also be delivered to Room
- 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
- Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By April 24, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose inter est 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
0
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 cur rent copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room,,the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NM., Mashington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel<
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designate)
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:
(I) 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 oplniok which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in I 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'etermination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
'f 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 C
the issuance of any amendment.
P 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 Comnission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at l-(800) 248-5100 (in Hissouri l-(800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to Ledyard B. Harsh: petitioner's name and 5
telephone
- number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
A copy of the petition I
should also be sent to the Office of the General
- Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Hark J. Wetterhahn,
P
- Esquire, Winston L 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)'nd 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 9, 1995, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document room located at the Reference and Documents Department, Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 13126.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate l-l Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
5
March 17, 1995 Mr. B. Ralph Sylvia Executive Vice President, Nuclear Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, NY 13093 I
Distribution:
Docket File LMarsh PUBLIC
'Vogan PD I-1 Rdg.
JHarold SVarga GEdison JZwolinski OGC ACRS (4)
OPA OC/LFDCB CCowgill, RI
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING, NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO.
2 (TAC NO. H91766)
Dear Hr. Sylvia:
The Commission has requested the Office of the Federal Register to publish the enclosed'Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
- License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for Hearing."
This notice relates to your application for amendment dated March 9, 1995, that requested changes to Technical Specification Section 4.6. 1.2.a which provides the surveillance requirements for integrated containment leak rate testing, Type A tests.
It is being published as an "Individual Notice" with a 30-day comment period rather than a "Biweekly Notice" due to the schedule and necessary planning for the upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage.
Sincerely, Original signe'd by:
Docket No. 50-410
Enclosure:
Notice Gordon E. Edison, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate l-l Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DOCUMENT NAME H: iNHP2iNM291765. IND To receive e copy of this document, Indicete In the box: "C" ~ Copy without enciosures E"
Copy with enclosures "N" ~ No copy OFFICE LA P 5
PH: PDI-1 C,
PM'DI-1 D
~ PDI-1 hr NAME DATE CVo 03/
/95 JHarold:cn 03/
/95 GEdi son 03/
/95 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY LHarsh 03/ g/95
l" I
4 l
'E ti e