ML17264A291
| ML17264A291 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ginna  |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1995 |
| From: | Andrea Johnson NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17264A290 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M94142, NUDOCS 9512150017 | |
| Download: ML17264A291 (12) | |
Text
UNIT D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R.
E.
GINNA NUCLEA POW R PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-24 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE PROPOS D 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-18, issued to Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation (the licensee) for operation of the R.
E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant located in Wayne County, New York.
The proposed amendment would revise the Ginna Station Technical Specifications (TSs) to implement the amended regulation 10 CFR Part 50; Appendix J, Option B (new rule), to provide a performance based option for leakage-rate testing of containment.
The proposed amendment would revise the current TSs (CTSs) and License, Item 2.D, which contains four exemptions to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, which are proposed to be 'removed:
a ~
b.
C.
exemption from Section III.A.4(a) with respect to the maximum allowable leakage rate for reduced pressure tests; exemption from Section III.B.1 with respect to the acceptable technique for performing local Type B leakage rate tests; exemption from Section III.D.1 for scheduling of containment integrated leakage rate tests with respect to the 10-year inservice inspection (ISI); and Enclosure
+><~i.500i7 05000244
@gal.ZOi pgp ADGCK p
P
d.
exemption from Section III.D.2 with respect to the testing interval of containment airlocks.
The proposed amendment would implement Option 8 as part of the implementation of the improved standard TSs (ISTSs) which are currently undergoing NRC staff review (submittal of Hay 26, 1995).
The amendment proposes to add a specific reference to Regulatory Guide
- 1. 163, "Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program" in the Administrative Controls section of the Ginna Station TSs.
No exceptions to the regulatory guide, nor the documents which are endorsed by the regulatory
- guide, are being requested.
The licensee does not propose to deviate from methods approved by the Commission and endorsed in a regulatory guide.
The amendment proposes that a detailed performance-based leakage-test program will be available for NRC inspection upon implementation of the ISTSs for the Ginna Station.
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 A
has provided its analysis'f the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
The proposed changes to the Ginna Station Technical Specifications [...]
have been evaluated with respect to 10 CFR 50.92(c) and shown to not involve a significant hazards consideration as described below.
This evaluation is organized into the 4 categories [."..].
C. 1 valuatio o
Ho e Restrictiv C
es The more restrictive changes [...] do not involve a significant hazards consideration as discussed below:
1.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes provide more stringent requirements for operation of the facility.
These more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will increase the probability of initiating an analyzed event and do not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an accident or transient event.
The more restrictive requirements continue to ensure that process variables, structures,
- systems, and components are maintained consistent with the safety analyses and licensing basis.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2."
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed changes do impose different requirements.
However, these changes are consistent with assumptions made in the safety analysis and licensing basis.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The imposition of more restrictive requirements either has no impact or increases the margin of plant safety.
Each change in this category is, by definition, providing additional restrictions to enhance plant safety.
The change maintains requirements within safety analyses and licensing bases.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant r eduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above information, it has been determined that the proposed administrative changes to the Ginna Station Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92(c) and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
C.2 Ev lu tion of ess Restrictive Ch n es The less restrictive changes [...] do not involve a significant hazards consideration as discussed below:
2.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with.the proposed changes does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are all consistent with NRC requirements and guidance for implementation of Option B.
Based on industry and NRC evaluations performed in support of developing Option B, these changes potentially result in a minor increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated due to the increased testing intervals.
However, the proposed changes do not result in an increase in the core damage frequency since the containment system is used for mitigation purposes only.
The changes are also expected to result in increased attention on components with poor leakage test history as part of the performance-based
.nature of Option B
such that the marginally increased consequences from the expanded testing intervals may be further reduced or negated.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
I Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) nor alter the function of the containment system.
The changes only provide for additional time between tests and revised acceptance and testing crite} ia for leakage tests which remain consistent with the accident analysis bases.
- Thus, these changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system setpoints, or limiting conditions for operation are determined.
- Instead, the changes are. expected to
result in an increased focus on components demonstrating poor leakage test history without excessive testing of components which continue to demonstrate good test history.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above, it has been determined that the proposed less restrictive changes to the Ginna Station Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated, and does nqt involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92(c) and.do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
C.3 Evaluation of Administrative Ch es The administrative changes [...] do not involve a significant hazards consideration as discussed below:
l.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes.'-
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes involve either:
(1) the relocation of requirements within the Technical Specifications to support consolidation of similar requirements, (2) the reformatting or'ewording of the existing Technical Specifications to provide consistency with 10 CFR
[Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B or NRC-implementing guidance, or (3) minor changes to the Technical Specifications such that the changes do not involve any technical nature.
As such, these changes are administrative in nature and does not impact initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident frow, any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed
- changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed changes will not impose any new or different requirements.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes will not reduce a margin of plant safety because the changes do not impact any safety analysis assumptions.
These changes are administrative in nature.
As such, no question of
safety is involved, and the change does not involve a significant reduction in.a margin of safety.
Based upon the above information, it has been determined that the proposed administrative changes to the Ginna Station Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant r eduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92(c) and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
C.4 valu tion o R
ved or Oelete R
erne t The removed or deleted requirements discussed in Section B.4 do not involve a significant hazards consideration as discussed below:
1.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes only involve the removal or deletion of requirements which are duplicated in 10 CFR [Part] 50, Appendix J, Option B, Regulatory Guide
[RG] 1. 163 as referenced in the Technical Specifications, or NEI [Nuclear Energy Institute] 94-01'and ANSI/ANS 56.8-1994 (as endorsed by RG 1.163).
As such, this change is not technical in nature and does not impact initiators or analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient events.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e.,
no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in the methods governing normal plant operation.
The proposed changes will not impose any new or different requirements.
Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed changes does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes will not reduce a margin of plant safety because the deleted requirements are still retained in other regulatory documents that cannot be changed without prior NRC review and approval.
As such, no question of safety is involved, and the change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based upon the above information, it has been determined that the proposed changes to the Ginna Station Technical Specifications do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.92(c) and do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
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 coaeents 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 Coaeission 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 comnents received.
Should the Comnission 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.
Mritten 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 comnents 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 January 8, 1996, 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 Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, NY 14610.
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 IO 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 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 1
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, OC 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. 'here 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 1-(800) 342-6700).
The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to Ledyard B. Harsh, Director, Project Directorate I-1: petitioner's name and telephone
- number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
A copy of the petition should also be sent to, the Office of the General
- Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Nicholas S. Reynolds, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L
St, NW., Washington, DC 20005, attorney for the'icensee.
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 27, 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 Rochester Public Library, 115 South Avenue, Rochester, NY 14610.
Dated at Rockville, Haryland, this 1st day of December 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COHHISSION Alle R. Johnson Project Hanager Proje t Direct ate I-1 Divisio eactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation