Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices 2991

The application does not propose a

change in the rights, obligations, or

interests of the other joint owners of

MP3. In addition, no physical changes

to MP3 or operational changes are being

proposed.

The proposed amendment, submitted

by NNECO on behalf of NEP, would

remove references to Montaup in the

license and change the number of

license holders as stated in the license

from 14 to 13. NEP is currently

referenced in the license as a licensee,

given its existing ownership interest in

MP3, and therefore, would not need to

be added to the license. These changes

are necessary to reflect the proposed

transfer.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license,

or any right thereunder, shall be

transferred, directly or indirectly,

through transfer of control of the

license, unless the Commission shall

give its consent in writing. The

Commission will approve an

application for the direct transfer of a

license, if the Commission determines

that the proposed transferee is qualified

to hold the license, and that the transfer

is otherwise consistent with applicable

provisions of law, regulations, and

orders issued by the Commission

pursuant thereto. An application for

approval of an indirect license transfer

will be approved if the Commission

determines that the underlying

transaction effecting the indirect

transfer will not affect the qualifications

of the holder of the license, and that the

indirect transfer is otherwise consistent

with applicable provisions of law,

regulations, and orders issued by the

Commission pursuant thereto.

Before issuance of the proposed

conforming 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.

As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless

otherwise determined by the

Commission with regard to a specific

application, the Commission has

determined that any amendment to the

license of a utilization facility which

does no more than conform the license

to reflect the transfer action involves no

significant hazards consideration. No

contrary determination has been made

with respect to this specific license

amendment application. In light of the

generic determination reflected in 10

CFR 2.1315, no public comments with

respect to significant hazards

considerations are being solicited,

notwithstanding the general comment

procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene, and

written comments with regard to the

license transfer application, are

discussed below.

By February 7, 2000, any person

whose interest may be affected by the

Commission’s action on the application

may request a hearing, and, if not the

applicants, may petition for leave to

intervene in a hearing proceeding on the

Commission’s action. Requests for a

hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene should be filed in accordance

with the Commission’s rules of practice

set forth in Subpart M, ‘‘Public

Notification, Availability of Documents

and Records, Hearing Requests and

Procedures for Hearings on License

Transfer Applications,’’ of 10 CFR Part

2. In particular, such requests and

petitions must comply with the

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,

and should address the considerations

contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may be

denied, as provided in 10 CFR

2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure

to file on time is established. In

addition, an untimely request or

petition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, in

reviewing untimely requests or

petitions, set forth in 10 CFR

2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene should be served

upon Edward Berlin, Esq., Kenneth G.

Jaffe, Esq., and Scott P. Klurfeld, Esq.,

Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, LLP,

3000 K Street, NW., Suite 300,

Washington, DC 20007–5116, attorneys

for New England Power Company;

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq., Ropes &

Gray, One International Place, Boston,

Massachusetts, 02110–2624, attorney for

Montaup Electric Company; Lillian M.

Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel,

Northeast Utilities Service Company,

107 Selden Street, Berlin, Connecticut,

06037, attorney for Northeast Nuclear

Energy Company; the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address

for filings regarding license transfer

cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the

Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice or

order granting or denying a hearing

request or intervention petition,

designating the issues for any hearing

that will be held and designating the

Presiding Officer. A notice granting a

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register and served on the parties to the

hearing.

As an alternative to requests for

hearing and petitions to intervene, by

February 17, 2000 persons may submit

written comments regarding the license

transfer application, as provided for in

10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will

consider and, if appropriate, respond to

these comments, but such comments

will not otherwise constitute part of the

decisional record. Comments should be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated June

15, 1999, as supplemented July 20,

September 3, and November 29, 1999,

submitted under cover of letters dated

June 15, July 20, September 3, and

November 29, 1999, respectively, which

are 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 12th day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Victor Nerses,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–1172 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company,

San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15 issued to Southern

California Edison Company (SCE, the

licensee) for operation of the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),

Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego

County, California.

The proposed amendments would

revise the SONGS, Units 2 and 3,

2992 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices

Technical Specification (TS) relating to

the Auxiliary Feedwater (AFW) System.

Specifically, the licensee proposed to

revise TS 3.7.5 to add a note that states:

‘‘The steam driven AFW pump is

OPERABLE when running and

controlled manually to support plant

start-ups, plant shut-downs, and AFW

pump and valve testing.’’

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, 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

amendments 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. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated?

Response: No.

Probabilistic analyses have been performed

in support of declaring P140 operable when

the pump is manually actuated and

operating.

The results show that, considering P–140

to be in test for an entire year, the core

damage risk of a Main Steam Line Break/

Feedwater Line Break (MSLB/FWLB) slightly

increases (4.3E–8/yr) while the risk due to

other initiating events decreases (3E–7/yr).

The net core damage impact of P–140 in test

for an entire year is a Core Damage

Frequency (CDF) decrease of 2E–7/yr. Having

P140 operating instead of being in standby

increases its reliability. This increased

reliability reduces the risk due to other

initiating events, such as loss of main

feedwater, medium and small Loss of Coolant

Accidents (LOCAs), Steam Generator Tube

Rupture (SGTR), and Loss of Offsite Power

(LOP), which require Auxiliary Feedwater

(AFW) and which occur with much greater

frequency than MSLB/FWLB. With the

overall CDF reduction a result of considering

P140 being in a test configuration for an

entire year, the actual cumulative risk

incurred is the weighted fraction that P140 is

in the test configuration over a year period.

Based on past experience, the pump is

running in manual approximately 500

minutes/year, which results in an annual net

cumulative CDF reduction on the order of

2E–10/yr due to running P140 in the manual

mode.

Therefore, the operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change does

not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated?

Response: No.

This change does not involve a plant

hardware modification or allow the operation

of any plant equipment in any way other

than originally designed. This change only

affects the administrative tracking of the

turbine-driven AFW pump when the steam

driven AFW pump is operating in the manual

mode.

Therefore, the operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change will

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

3. Will operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

Response: No.

Pump history shows the pump is run

approximately 500 minutes per year. In all

cases except for the one postulated scenario

of the Main Steam Isolation Signal followed

by an Emergency Feedwater Actuation Signal

the turbine-driven AFW pump is not

susceptible to being tripped. Also, this

postulated scenario does not affect the

capability of the motor-driven AFW pumps.

Even though there is a small increase in the

CDF from the AFW steam driven pump

operating in manual mode based on the

possibility of a MSLB/FWLB, also

considering other initiating events results in

an annual net cumulative CDF reduction on

the order of 2E–10/yr due to P140 running in

the manual mode.

Therefore, the operation of the facility in

accordance with this proposed change does

not involve a significant reduction in the

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 February 17, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Notices 2993

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.

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

Douglas K. Porter, Esquire, Southern

California Edison Company, 2244

Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead,

California 91770, 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

amendments dated January 2, 1998, as

supplemented December 13, 1999,

which are 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 12th day

of January 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raghavan,

Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project

Directorate IV & Decommissioning, Division

of Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation

[FR Doc. 00–1174 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–361 and 50–362]

Southern California Edison Company

San Onofre Nuclear Generating

Station, Units 2 and 3; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to

Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF–

10 and NPF–15 issued to Southern

California Edison Company (SCE, the

licensee) for operation of the San Onofre

Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS),

Units 2 and 3, located in San Diego

County, California.

The proposed amendments would

revise the SONGS, Units 2 and 3,

Technical Specification (TS) related to

the containment isolation valves.

Specifically, the licensee proposed a

revision to TS 3.6.3 to extend the

completion times for Section D.1 and

D.2 valves from 4 hours to the

applicable limiting condition for

operation time pertaining to the

engineered safety feature system in

which the valve is installed.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendments, 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

amendments 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