[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55777-55785]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26780]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-247]
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; 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-26 issued to Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (the
licensee) for operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.
2, located in Westchester County, New York.
The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extension of several
calibrations and test of instrument channels from 30 months to 37
months. Specifically the proposed amendment would affect (a) reactor
coolant flow transmitters; (b) containment sump level (discrete)
Recirculation sump level (discrete); (c) Pressurizer level
transmitters; (d) 480 volt undervoltage; (e) 6.9 kv undervoltage relays
and 6.9 kv underfrequency relays; (f) Steam generator level--
transmitters; (g) residual heat removal (RHR) flow calibration--
transmitters; (h) Accumulator level transmitters; (i) Accumulator
pressure transmitters; (j) Steam line pressure transmitters; (k)
Containment sump, Recirculation sump, Reactor cavity level
(continuous), and Containment sump (continuous); (l) Volume control
tank level; (m) Fan
[[Page 55778]]
cooler unit (FCU) cooling flow transmitters; (n) overpressure
protection pressure transmitters (field) Pressurizer power operated
relief valve's; (o) Pressurizer pressure--transmitters; (p) OT[Delta]T
and OP[Delta]T setpoint generators. Exigent circumstances exist because
the 30-month surveillance interval for some of these instruments
expires on October 31, 1999.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
(A) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the RCS [reactor coolant system] flow channels for
a 30-month operating cycle was performed. A corresponding
statistical evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month
operating cycle has also been performed. The drift and bias thus
calculated has been evaluated with regard to RCS flow CSA [channel
statistical allowance] versus the Safety Analysis limits and it has
been determined that the drift can be accommodated within the
existing related Safety Analysis limits. It has also been determined
that there is no general impact upon any Technical Specification
requirements or the related Safety Analysis limits.
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(B) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. It has been concluded that there will
be no impact upon any Technical Specification Requirement or Safety
Analysis Limits. Of the surveillance anomalies identified since
1986, only one impacted an instrument channel. In this instance,
level indication continued to be maintained due to redundancy.
As added assurance, the current Indian Point Unit 2 Technical
Specifications require a channel check be performed every shift,
providing a means to monitor the channels for gross failure.
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits remains unchanged and provides
assurance that plant protective functions will occur as required. It
is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance interval from
24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the channels will not result
in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(C) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the
transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months)
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitter projected at
37 months, the sum is accommodated by the channel uncertainty
calculations. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30
months is valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter
is calibrated at 37 months.
It can also be concluded that sufficient allowance exists
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the
licensing basis Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the channel
statistical error resulting from a 37 month operating cycle (with a
rack calibration at 24 months plus 25%).
The existing allowance between the Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. Thus, the Channel
Statistical Allowance for 37 months can be accommodated without
impacting the Incensing basis Safety Analysis.
It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(D) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the 480 volt under voltage and degraded voltage
relay channels for a 30-month operating cycle was performed. A
corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift over a
37-month operating cycle has also been performed. The drift thus
calculated has been evaluated with regard to the original CSA and
has been found to be bounded by the CSA value. In addition, the
relay setpoints have been compared with the Safety Analysis limits
and it has been determined that the drift and bias can be
accommodated within the existing related Safety Analysis limits. It
has also been determined that there is no general impact upon any
Technical Specification requirements or the related Safety Analysis
limits.
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the 480 volt under voltage and degraded
voltage relays will not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(E) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the 6.9 kV under voltage and Under Frequency relay
channels for a 30-month operating cycle was performed. Corresponding
statistical evaluations of the projected drifts over a 37-month
operating cycle has also been performed. It has been confirmed that
the drifts for 37 months will be no greater than the drifts
projected for 30 months. The drifts thus calculated have been
evaluated with regard to under voltage and under frequency set
points versus the Safety Analysis limits and it has been determined
that the drift can be accommodated within the existing related
Safety Analysis limits with no decrease in margin. It has also been
determined that there is no general impact upon any Technical
Specification requirements of the related Safety Analysis limits.
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that hanging the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the under voltage and under frequency
relays will not result in a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(F) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the
transmitters over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months)
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitter projected at
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original CSA at 30 months.
Therefore, the channel uncertainty
[[Page 55779]]
derived for 30 months is valid for a 37-month operating cycle
providing the rack is calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%)
frequency and the transmitter is calibrated at 37 months. It has
been demonstrated that sufficient allowance exists between the
existing Technical Specification limits and the licensing basis
Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the channel statistical error
resulting from a 37 month operating cycle (with a rack calibration
at 24 months plus 25%).
The existing allowance between the Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitters will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(G) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the
transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months)
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitter projected at
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original projection at 30
months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is
valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter
is calibrated at 37 months.
The proposed change does not affect the existing Safety Analysis
limit nor any Technical Specification limits. Plant equipment will
function as before, in order to preserve Safety Analysis limits.
It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitters
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(H) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the accumulator level channels for a 30-month
operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical
evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month operating cycle
has also been performed. It has been confirmed that the drift,
including bias, for 37 months will be bounded by the CSA originally
calculated for 30 months. The drift thus calculated has been
evaluated with regard to level setpoints, versus the Safety Analysis
limits and it has been determined that the drift, including bias,
can be accommodated within the existing related Safety Analysis
limits. It has also been determined that there is no general impact
upon any Technical Specification requirements or the related Safety
Analysis limits.
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(I) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the accumulator pressure channels for a 30-month
operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical
evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month operating cycle
has also been performed. It has been confirmed that the drift for 37
months will be no greater than the drift projected for 30 months.
The drift thus calculated has been evaluated with regard to
accumulator pressure setpoints versus the Safety Analysis limits and
it has been determined that the drift can be accommodated within the
existing related Safety Analysis limits. It has also been determined
that there is no general impact upon any Technical Specification
requirements or the related Safety Analysis limits.
The accumulators are passive engineered safety features since
gas forces injection and no external source of power or signal
transmission is needed to obtain fast-acting, high-flow capability
when injection is required. One accumulator is attached to each of
the four cold legs of the reactor coolant system.
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(J) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the steam line pressure channels for a 30-month
operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical
evaluation of the projected drift over a 37-month operating cycle
has also been performed. It has been confirmed that the drift for 37
months will be no greater than the drift projected for 30 months.
The drift thus calculated has been evaluated with regard to steam
line pressure setpoints versus the Safety Analysis limits and it has
been determined that the drift can be accommodated within the
existing related Safety Analysis limits. It has also been determined
that there is no general impact upon any Technical Specification
requirements or the related Safety Analysis limits. The existing
margin between the Technical Specification limits and the Safety
Analysis limits provides assurance that plant protective functions
will occur as required. It is therefore concluded that changing the
surveillance interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the
transmitter will not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(K) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift and
bias of the transmitters over a 37-month operating cycle has
currently been performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder
of the channels (calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency
of 24 months is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitters
projected at 37 months, the sum does not exceed the original
projections at 30 months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived
for 30 months is valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the
rack is calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the
transmitters are calibrated at 37 months. The sump level indications
are provided to the control room by both magnetic switch/float-type
detectors (series of 5 lights provide discrete level indication) and
differential pressure transmitter (continuous level indication)
which encompasses redundancy and diversity associated with
containment sump level monitoring.
The existing allowance between the Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. No change in these
allowances has occurred due to the proposed revision in surveillance
interval of the transmitters.
It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(L) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the
channel over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been
performed. It has been confirmed that the channel drift for a 37-
month interval is bounded by the existing drift allowance used in
the current uncertainty calculations. Therefore, the channel
uncertainty derived for 30 months is valid for a 37-month operating
cycle. There are no nominal setpoints within the Technical
Specifications for the level of the Volume Control Tank nor are
there any applicable Safety Analysis Limits. Thus, the Channel
Statistical Allowance for 37 months can be accommodated without
impacting the licensing basis Safety Analysis.
It is therefore concluded that changing the surveillance
interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter
will not result in a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
[[Page 55780]]
(M) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of
uncertainties for the FCU [fan cooler unit] flow channels for a 30-
month operating cycle was performed. A corresponding statistical
evaluation of the projected drift of the transmitters over a 37-
month operating cycle has also been performed. When drift of the
remainder of the channel (calibrated at 24 months) is combined with
the drift and bias of the transmitter at 37 months, the sum does not
exceed the original projection at 30 months. Therefore, the channel
uncertainty derived for 30 months is valid for a 37 month operating
cycle providing the rack is calibrated at the 24 month (plus 25%)
frequency and the transmitter is calibrated at 37 months. In
addition, the flow controllers to the Fan Cooling Units have had
their low flow setpoints raised to provide operators with earlier
alarms associated with FCU system flow degradation.
It has been determined that there is no general impact upon any
Technical Specification requirements or related Safety Analysis
limits. The Indian Point Unit 2 Technical Specification does not
specify a specific setpoint. It is therefore concluded that changing
the surveillance interval from 24 months (plus 25%) to 37 months for
the transmitter will not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(N) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. Statistical analyses of OPS [over
pressure protection] pressure and PORV [power operated relief valve]
channel uncertainties for a 30 month operating cycle were previously
performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of
the OPS pressure transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has
currently been performed. It has been confirmed that when the
transmitter drift for a 37-month interval is determined it is
bounded by the existing drift allowance used in the uncertainty
calculations. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the
channel (calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24
months) is combined with the drift of the transmitter projected at
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original projection at 30
months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is
valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter
is calibrated at 37 months.
Similarly, a statistical evaluation of the projected drift of
the PORV channel over a 37 month operating cycle has currently been
performed. It has been confirmed that the channel drift for a 37-
month interval is bounded by the existing drift allowance used in
the current uncertainty calculations. Therefore, the channel
uncertainty derived for thirty months is valid for a 37 month-
operating cycle.
It can also be concluded that sufficient allowance exists
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the
licensing basis Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the channel
statistical errors resulting from a 37 month operating cycle.
The existing allowance between the Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the OPS pressure transmitter and the
PORV channels will not result in a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
(O) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
A corresponding statistical evaluation of the projected drift of the
transmitter over a 37-month operating cycle has currently been
performed. Subsequently, when drift of the remainder of the channel
(calibrated at the Technical Specification frequency of 24 months)
is combined with the drift and bias of the transmitters projected at
37 months, the sum does not exceed the original projection at 30
months. Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is
valid for a 37-month operating cycle providing the rack is
calibrated at the 24-month (plus 25%) frequency and the transmitter
is calibrated at 37 months. It can also be concluded that sufficient
allowance exists between the existing Technical Specification limits
and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limits to accommodate the
channel statistical error resulting from a 37 month operating cycle
(with a rack calibration at 24 months plus 25%).
The existing allowance between the Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(P) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated. A statistical analysis of channel
uncertainty for a 30 month operating cycle was previously performed.
The OT[Delta]T/OP[Delta]T uncertainty calculations of record for Con
Ed are derived from PC-R1A, PC-R1B, and PT-Q52. Of these, the
quarterly surveillance performed via PT-Q52 provides the governing
uncertainty allowances because it performs a functional check of the
complete channel from rack input through output (bistable) every 90
days. This includes the R/E converters, E/I converters, I/I
converters, OT[Delta]T setpoint generators, OP[Delta]T setpoint
generators, OP[Delta]T impulse lag modules, and the bistables. If a
problem is detected in PT-Q52, other procedures (PC-RIA, PC-RIB, PT-
VIIA) are invoked to perform thorough evaluation and recalibration,
as necessary. Therefore, the rack drift allowance incorporated in
the OT[Delta]T and OP[Delta]T setpoint calculations are based on the
performance of PT-Q52. Thus, continued performance of PT-Q52 on a
quarterly basis, even in conjunction with the one time extension of
PC-EM37, provides assurance that all modules are performing
correctly.
Therefore, the channel uncertainty derived for 30 months is
valid for a 37-month operating cycle since the rack components are
checked on a quarterly frequency. It can also be concluded that
sufficient margin exists between the existing Technical
Specification limits and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limits
to accommodate the channel statistical error resulting from a 37
month operating cycle (with a rack calibration at 24 months plus
25%).
The existing margin between the Technical Specification limits
and the Safety Analysis limits provides assurance that plant
protective functions will occur as required. It is therefore
concluded that changing the surveillance interval from 24 months
(plus 25%) to 37 months for the transmitter will not result in a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
(A) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
reactor coolant system flow instrumentation functions. The proposed
change in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance
interval for the transmitters will not result in a channel
statistical allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore
the margin between the existing Technical Specification limits and
the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally
set at (or more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits,
will provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis
limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from
occurring.
(B) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the Containment
sump level and Recirculation Sump Level instrumentation functions.
Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more
conservatively than) Technical Specification
[[Page 55781]]
limits, will provide protective functions to assure that Safety
Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated
from occurring.
(C) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance, interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
Pressurizer Level instrumentation functions. The proposed change in
operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval for
the transmitters will not result in a channel statistical allowance
which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin between
the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety Analysis
limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more
conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will provide
protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded.
This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(D) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
480 Volt under voltage or degraded voltage instrumentation
functions. The proposed change in operating cycle length due to an
increased surveillance interval for the relays will not result in a
channel statistical allowance which exceeds the current margin and
therefore the margin between the existing Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will
be nominally set at (or more conservatively than) Technical
Specification limits, will provide protective functions to assure
that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated from occurring.
(E) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the 6.9 kV Under
Voltage and Under Frequency instrumentation functions. The proposed
change in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance
interval for the relays will not result in a channel statistical
allowance which reduces the margin between the existing Technical
Specification limits and the Safety Analysis limits. Plant
equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more conservatively
than) Technical Specification limits, will provide protective
functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded.
This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(F) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
steam generator level instrumentation functions. The proposed change
in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval
for the transmitter will not result in a channel statistical
allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore will not
exceed the margin between the existing Technical Specification
limits and the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will
be nominally set at (or more conservatively than) Technical
Specification limits, will provide protective functions to assure
that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated from occurring.
(G) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Finial Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
RHR [Residual Heat Removal] Flow instrumentation functions. The
proposed change in operating cycle length due to an increased
surveillance interval for the transmitter will not impact any
Technical Specification limit or Safety Analysis limit. Plant
protective functions will occur as designed.
This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(H) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
accumulator level instrumentation functions. The proposed change in
operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval for
the level transmitters will not result in a channel statistical
allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety
Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or
more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits
are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from
occurring.
(I) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
accumulator pressure instrumentation functions. The proposed change
in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval
for the transmitters will not result in a channel statistical
allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety
Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or
more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits
are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from
occurring.
(J) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
steam line pressure instrumentation functions. The proposed change
in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval
for the relays will not result in a channel statistical allowance
which exceeds the current margin and therefore the margin between
the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety Analysis
limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more
conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will provide
protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(K) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different
[[Page 55782]]
type of equipment, nor does it involve operating equipment required
for safe operation of the facility in a manner that is different
from that addressed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The
proposed change in operating cycle length due to an increased
surveillance interval for the transmitters will not result in a
channel statistical allowance which impacts the current margin
between the existing Technical Specification limits and the Safety
Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or
more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits
are not exceeded.
This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(L) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. There are no nominal setpoints
within the Technical Specifications for the level of the Volume
Control Tank nor are there any applicable Safety Analysis Limits.
Thus, the Channel Statistical Allowance for 37 months can be
accommodated without impacting the licensing basis Safety Analysis.
Other Plant equipment, which will be nominally set at (or more
conservatively than) Technical Specification limits, will continue
to provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis
limits are riot exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from
occurring.
(M) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
The proposed change in surveillance interval for the transmitter
will not result in any impact upon existing Technical Specifications
or Safety Analysis. Therefore, plant equipment will continue to
provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis limits
are not exceeded.
This will prevent the possibility a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(N) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the PORV
Actuation/Reclosure and Overpressure Protection System (OPS)
instrumentation functions. The proposed change in operating cycle
length due to an increased surveillance interval will not result in
channel statistical allowance which exceeds current margins and
therefore, the margins between existing Technical Specification
limits and Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be
nominally set at (or more conservatively than) Technical
Specification limits, will provide protective functions to assure
that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated from occurring.
(O) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Also, the increased
surveillance interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the
Pressurizer Pressure channel instrumentation functions. The proposed
change in operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance
interval for the transmitter will not result in a channel
statistical allowance which exceeds the current margin and therefore
the margin between the existing Technical Specification limits and
the Safety Analysis limits. Plant equipment, which will be nominally
set at (or more conservatively than) Technical Specification limits,
will provide protective functions to assure that Safety Analysis
limits are not exceeded. This will prevent the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated from
occurring.
(P) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the
addition of any new or different type of equipment, nor does it
involve operating equipment required for safe operation of the
facility in a manner that is different from that addressed in the
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The increased surveillance
interval (one-time only) will not adversely affect the OP/OT
[Delta]T instrumentation functions since these loop functions are
checked on a quarterly basis under PT-Q52. The proposed change in
operating cycle length due to an increased surveillance interval for
the setpoint generators will not result in a channel statistical
allowance which exceeds the current margin. It can also be concluded
that sufficient margin exists between the existing Technical
Specification limits and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limits
to accommodate the channel statistical error resulting from a 37
month operating cycle (with a rack calibration at 24 months plus
25%).
This will prevent the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any previously evaluated from occurring.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
(A) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(B) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The surveillance
anomalies noted did not render the level indication system non-
operational. Therefore, based on the redundancy and the reliability
of the system, extension of the surveillance interval for a maximum
of seven months for these tests would have little affect on the
reliability of the discrete level indication systems. The historical
data supports the conclusion that the margin of safety will not be
compromised by extending the interval between tests on a one-time
basis to a maximum of 37 months. Based on past test results, the
one-time extension of six months does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
(C) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds any
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Thus, the Channel Statistical Allowance for 37 months can
be accommodated without impacting the licensing basis Safety
Analysis. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by
six months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(D) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension
[[Page 55783]]
of the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of
any safety related system, component or structure and does not
result in increased severity of any of the accidents considered in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test
results, the one'-time extension of six months does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
(E) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which impacts the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of seven months does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
(F) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(G) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which affects the
margin between any current Technical Specification limit and any
licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective functions will
occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. Therefore,
the proposed change for a one-time extension of the test interval
does not adversely affect the performance of any safety related
system, component or structure and does not result in increased
severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report. In conclusion, based upon the recently
completed 37 month drift value being less than the existing 24 month
drift value, the one-time extension of the surveillance interval for
the transmitter for seven months does not involve a significant
increase in a margin of safety.
(H) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitter by
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(I) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin existing between the current Technical Specification limit
and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective functions
will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded.
Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of the test
interval does not adversely affect the performance of any safety
related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitter by
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(J) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitter by
six months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(K) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which impacts any
margin which exits between the current Technical Specification
limits and the licensing basis Safety Analysis Limits. Therefore,
protective functions will continue to occur unchanged so that Safety
Analysis limits are not exceeded. There is no reduction in the
margin between any existing Technical Specification limit and its
related Safety Analysis limit. Therefore, the proposed change for a
one-time extension of the calibration and test interval does not
adversely affect the performance of any safety related system,
component or structure and does result in increased severity of any
of the accidents considered in the Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report. Based on past test results, the one-time extension of the
surveillance frequency for the channel transmitters does not involve
a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
(L) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. The change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which impacts any
Technical Specification limits nor any licensing basis Safety
Analysis limit. Protective functions will continue to occur so that
Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded. There are no nominal
setpoints within the Technical Specifications for the level of the
Volume Control Tank nor are there any applicable Safety Analysis
Limits.
Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of the
test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of seven months for calibration of the channel does
not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
(M) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Because the change in surveillance interval resulting from an
increased operating cycle will not impact the margin which exists
between current Technical Specification limits and licensing basis
Safety Analysis limits, protective functions will continue to occur
so that Safety Analysis limits are not affected. In addition, the
flow controllers to the Fan Cooling Units have had their low flow
setpoints raised to provide operators with an earlier warning
associated with FCU system flow degradation. Therefore, the proposed
change for a one-time extension of the transmitter surveillance
interval does not adversely affect the performance of any safety
related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report.
(N) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin existing between the current Technical Specification limit
and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective functions
will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not exceeded.
Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of the
calibration intervals does not adversely
[[Page 55784]]
affect the performance of any safety related system, component or
structure and does not result in increased severity of any of the
accidents considered in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Based on past test results, the one-time extension of seven months
for the OPS transmitters and six months for PORV set point
calibrations does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(O) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. Based on past test results, the one-
time extension of the surveillance interval for the transmitters by
seven months does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety.
(P) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Because the change in
surveillance interval resulting from an increased operating cycle
will not result in a channel statistical allowance which exceeds the
margin which exists between the current Technical Specification
limit and the licensing basis Safety Analysis limit, protective
functions will occur so that Safety Analysis limits are not
exceeded. Therefore, the proposed change for a one-time extension of
the test interval does not adversely affect the performance of any
safety related system, component or structure and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the Updated
Final Safety Analysis Report. The OP/OT [Delta]T instrumentation
loop functions are checked on a quarterly basis under PT-Q52. Based
on past test results, the one-time extension of six months does 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 14 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 14-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 14-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 November 15, 1999, 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 Library, 100 Martin 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 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.
[[Page 55785]]
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 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 April 21, 1999, 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 Library, 100 Martine Avenue,
White Plains, New York 10610.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jefferey F. Harold,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-26780 Filed 10-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P