[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9816-9818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5251]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 247]


Consolidated Edison Company of New York; Notice of Consideration 
of Issuane 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-26 issued to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (Con 
Edison or the licensee) for operation of the Indian Point Nuclear 
Generating Station Unit 2 (IP2) located in Westchester County, New 
York.
    The proposed amendment would permit a one-time only extension of 
the current steam generator tube inservice inspection cycle. Technical 
Specification 4.13A.2.a requires steam generator tube examinations to 
be conducted at not less than 12 months and no later than 24 calendar 
months after the previous examination. Based upon the last examination 
during the 1995 refueling outage being completed on April 14, 1995, 
operation of the unit after April 14, 1997, would not be permitted. Con 
Edison proposes a one-time extension of the examination requirements, 
scheduled to be conducted during the 1997 refueling outage, to commence 
no later than May 2, 1997. 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 since:

    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed change does not involve any physical modifications 
to the plant or modification in the methods of plant operation which 
could increase the probability or consequences of previously 
evaluated accidents. The proposed change permits a one-time only 
extension of the current steam generator tube inservice inspection 
cycle. This extension would allow the steam generator tube 
examinations to be conducted during the 1997 refueling outage which 
will commence no later than May 2, 1997. The basis for acceptance of 
this increase in the technical specification limit is

[[Page 9817]]

the `non-operating' steam generator time between the last 
examination and the upcoming examination. No appreciable steam 
generator tube wear or degradation is expected as a result of this 
extension. This change will not affect the scope, methodology, 
acceptance limits and corrective measures of the existing steam 
generator tube examination program. The probability and consequences 
of failure of the steam generators due to leaking or degraded tubes 
is not increased by the proposed change. Therefore, the probability 
and the consequence of a design basis accident are not being 
increased by the proposed change.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Plant systems and components will not be operated in a different 
manner as a result of the proposed Technical Specification change. 
The proposed change permits the upcoming steam generator tube 
examination to be conducted during the 1997 refueling outage that 
will commence no later than May 2, 1997. There are no plant 
modifications or changes in methods of operation. Since this 
extension is based upon the `non-operating' steam generator time 
between the last examination and the upcoming examination, it will 
not increase the probability of occurrence of a tube rupture, 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident, or create 
any new accident precursor. Therefore, the possibility for an 
accident of a different type than was previously evaluated in the 
safety analysis report is not created by the proposed change to the 
Technical Specification.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change to Technical Specification section 4.13A.2.a 
will not reduce the margin of safety. This amendment involves a one-
time only extension of the current steam generator tube inservice 
inspection cycle. The basis for acceptance of this increase in the 
technical specification limit is the `non-operating' steam generator 
time between the last examination and the upcoming examination. No 
appreciable steam generator tube wear or degradation is expected as 
a result of this extension. Therefore, the accident analysis 
assumptions for design basis accidents are unaffected and the margin 
of safety is not decreased by the proposed Technical Specification 
change.
    Based on the preceding analysis, it is concluded that operation 
of Indian Point Unit No. 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment 
does not increase the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, nor reduce 
any margin of plant safety. Therefore, the license amendment does 
not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration as defined in 10 CFR 
50.92.

    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 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications 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 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 3, 1997, 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 White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine 
Avenue, White Plains, New York 10610. 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 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

[[Page 9818]]

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: 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 
1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union 
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the 
following message addressed to S. Singh Bajwa: 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 20555-0001, and to Brent 
L. Brandenburg, Esq., 4 Irving Place, New York, New York 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 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 February 14, 1997, 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 White Plains Public Library, 100 
Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10610.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of February 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jefferey F. Harold,
Project Manager, Project Directorate 1-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-5251 Filed 3-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P