15310 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Notices

COSTS: None.

Charles E. Myers,

Head, Arctic Staff, National Science

Foundation.

[FR Doc. 95–7096 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–410]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.; 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. 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 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. 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 the risk assessment described

above [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 B 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 area 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 structure 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 to

verify that leak rates remain within assumed

values will also not be changed.

Although the interval between the first and

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 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 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Notices 15311

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 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 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

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

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, 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 Ledyard

B. Marsh: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

date and page number of this Federal

Register. 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 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire,

Winston & 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) and 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

1–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–7185 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M