Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13481

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 award 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 William

D. Beckner, Director, Project Directorate

IV–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 Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman

& Holtzinger, P.C., 1615 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, 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 1, 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

Wharton County Junior College, J.M.

Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling

Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas W. Alexion,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6067 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–498]

Houston Lighting and Power Co., City

Public Service Board of San Antonio,

Central Power and Light Co., City of

Austin, TX; 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–

6, issued to Houston Lighting & Power

Company, et al., (the licensee) for

operation of the South Texas Project

(STP), Unit 1, located in Matagorda

County, Texas.

The proposed amendment would

change Technical Specification 3/4.4.5,

Steam Generators, and the associated

Bases to allow the use of an alternate

plugging criteria (known in the industry

as F *) on steam generator tubes that are

defective or degraded within certain

areas within the tubesheet.

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 proposed change does not involve

a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes to the Steam

Generator section of Technical Specifications

do not affect any accident initiators or

precursors and do not alter the design

assumptions for the systems or components

used to mitigate the consequences of an

accident. The requirements approved by the

NRC will not be reduced by this request.

Since F* utilizes the ‘‘as rolled’’ tube

configuration that exists as part of the

original steam generator design, all of the

design and operating characteristics of the

steam generator and connected systems are

preserved. The F* joint has been analyzed

and tested for design, operating and faulted

condition loadings in accordance with

Regulatory Guide 1.121 safety factors. At

worst case, a tube leak would occur with the

result being a primary to secondary leak.

Should a tube leak occur, the impact is

bounded by the ruptured tube evaluation

submitted by HL&P [Houston Lighting &

Power] for the STP Unit 1 operating license.

No new or unreviewed accident conditions

are created by the use of F* criteria. The

potential for a tube rupture is not increased

from the original submittal, thus there is no

impact on accidents evaluated as the design
13482 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

basis. Therefore use of the F* criteria will not

increase the probability of occurrence of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The use of the proposed F* alternate

plugging criteria will not introduce

significant or adverse changes to the plant

design basis. The failure of a tube which

remained unplugged in accordance with the

F* criteria would result in a tube leak, which

is a previously analyzed condition. Since this

leak would occur below the secondary face

of the tubesheet, its leak rate would be

limited by the tube-to-tubesheet interface.

Qualification testing and previous experience

indicates that normal and faulted leakage

would be well below the technical

specification limits creating no threat

associated with tube rupture type leakages.

This conclusion is consistent with previous

F* programs approved and used at other

operating plants.

However, in the unlikely event the failed

tube severed completely at a point below the

F* region, the remaining F* joint would

retain engagement in the tubesheet due to its

length of expanded contact within the

tubesheet bore, preventing any interaction

with neighboring tubes. If the tube severs at

a point above the F* region, then it is covered

by the tube rupture event as a part of the

UFSAR [updated final safety analysis report].

Thus, the possibility of a new or different

type of accident from any accident

previously evaluated is not credited.

3. The proposed change does not involve

a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Based on previous responses (above), the

protective boundaries of the steam generator

are preserved. A tube with degradation can

be kept in service through F* criteria which

provided an un-degraded expanded interface

with the tubesheet and which satisfies all of

the necessary structural and leakage

requirements per Reg. Guide 1.121 and the

Technical Specifications. Since the joint is

constrained within the tubesheet bore there

is no additional risk associated with tube

rupture. Since the UFSAR analyzed accident

scenarios remain bounding the use of an F*

criteria does not reduce the margin of safety.

Thus, these changes do not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety.

Therefore, based on the above evaluation,

Houston Lighting & Power has concluded

that these changes do not involve any

significant hazards considerations.

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,

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 12, 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 Wharton

County Junior College, J.M. Hodges

Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway,

Wharton, Texas 77488. 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13483

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 William

D. Beckner, Director, Project Directorate

IV–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 Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman

& Holtzinger, P.C., 1615 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, 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 1, 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

Wharton County Junior College, J.M.

Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling

Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas W. Alexion,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6068 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–220]

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.; Nine

Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 1;

Notice of Partial Withdrawal of

Application for Amendment to Facility

Operating License

The United States Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request by the Niagara

Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC) to

withdraw a portion of their July 21,

1994, application, for a proposed

amendment to Facility Operating

License DPR–63 for the Nine Mile Point

Nuclear Station Unit No. 1, located in

Oswego County, New York.

The proposed amendment would

have revised Technical Specifications

(TSs) 2.1.2 (Fuel Cladding Integrity),

3.1.7 (Fuel Rods), 3.6.2/4.6.2 (Protective

Instrumentation), and the associated

Bases to allow the use of Range 10 on

the Intermediate Range Neutron Flux

Monitors (IRMs) with the Reactor

Protection System low pressure trip for

main steam line isolation valve closure

not in bypass. Changes were also

proposed to TS Tables 3.6.2.a/4.6.2a

(Instrumentation that Initiates Scram)

and TS Tables 3.6.2g/4.6.2g

(Instrumentation that Initiates Control

Rod Withdrawal Block) to extend the

calibration frequency of the Source

Range Neutron Flux Monitors (SRMs)

and the IRMs from prior to startup and

shutdown to once per operating cycle.

The proposed change would have also

changed the Instrument Channel Test

interval for the SRMs and IRMs from

prior to startup and shutdown to once

per week. Associated changes to TSs

Setpoints, Bases, References, and Notes

for TSs 2.1.2, 3.1.7, and 3.6.2/4.6.2 were

also proposed.

By letter dated February 1, 1995,

NMPC requested to withdraw that

portion of the proposed amendment

associated with the extension of the

calibration frequency for the SRMs and

IRMs.

The Commission has previously

issued a Notice of Consideration of

Issuance of Amendment to Facility

Operating License, Proposed No

Significant Hazards Consideration

Determination, and Opportunity for a

Hearing which was published in the

Federal Register on August 31, 1994 (59

FR 45028).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated July 21, 1994, as

supplemented on December 5, 1994,

December 14, 1994, and January 11,

1995, and the licensee’s letter dated

February 1, 1995, which withdrew the

portion of the application for license

amendment associated with the

extension of the calibration frequency

for the SRMs and IRMs. The above

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at Reference

and Documents Department, Penfield

Library, State University of New York,

Oswego, New York.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donald S. Brinkman,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

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

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6064 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–305]

Wisconsin Public Service Corp.,

Wisconsin Power and Light Co.

Madison Gas and Electric Co.; Notice

of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Wisconsin Public

Service Corporation, Wisconsin Power

and Light Company, and Madison Gas

and Electric Company, (the licensee) to

withdraw its application dated April 21,

1994, for a proposed amendment to

Facility Operating License No. DPR–43