[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 236 (Friday, December 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63070-63073]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29937]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 63071]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-244]
R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; 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.
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. Exemption from Section III.A.4(a) with respect to the maximum
allowable leakage rate for reduced pressure tests;
b. Exemption from Section III.B.1 with respect to the acceptable
technique for performing local Type B leakage rate tests;
c. Exemption from Section III.D.1 for scheduling of containment
integrated leakage rate tests with respect to the 10-year inservice
inspection (ISI); and
d. Exemption from Section III.D.2 with respect to the testing
interval of containment airlocks.
The proposed amendment would implement Option B as part of the
implementation of the improved standard TSs (ISTSs) which are currently
undergoing NRC staff review (submittal of May 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 has provided its analysis of
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 Evaluation of More Restrictive Changes
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 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
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 Evaluation of Less Restrictive Changes
The less 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 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.
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) nor alter the
function of the containment system. The changes only provide for
additional time between tests and revised acceptance and testing
criteria 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
[[Page 63072]]
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 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.3 Evaluation of Administrative Changes
The administrative 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 involve either: (1) the relocation of requirements within
the Technical Specifications to support consolidation of similar
requirements, (2) the reformatting or rewording 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 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 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
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.4 Evaluation of Removed or Deleted Requirements
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 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 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
[[Page 63073]]
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 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, 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 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 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, Maryland, this 1st day of December 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen R. Johnson,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-29937 Filed 12-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
