[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63345-63347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30226]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-244]
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation; 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 change the footnote to the Improved
[[Page 63346]]
Technical Specifications associated with the Design Features Fuel
Storage Specification 4.3.1.1.b which required that 2300 ppm boron be
maintained in the Spent Fuel Pool until December 31, 1999. The footnote
would be changed to require 2300 ppm boron be maintained until June 30,
2001.
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:
Evaluation of Administrative Change
The administrative change associated with the revision of the
date specified in the Specification 4.3.1.1.b note associated with
maintaining spent fuel pool boron concentration [greater than or
equal to] 2300 ppm at all times until a permanent resolution can be
implemented does not involve a significant hazards consideration as
discussed below:
(1) Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The change revises
the required completion date for resolution of a boraflex
degradation issue. As described in the bases for LCO [limiting
condition for operation] 3.7.12, increases in spent fuel pool
temperature, with the corresponding decrease in water density and
void formation from boiling, will generally result in an decrease in
reactivity due to the decrease in moderation effects. The only
exception are temperature bands where positive reactivity is added
as a result of the high boron concentration. This effect is bounded
by the reactivity added as a result of a misloaded fuel assembly.
With respect to the more limiting dropped fuel assembly accidents,
boraflex neutron absorber panels were originally assumed in the
criticality analysis. Requiring a high concentration of soluble
boron in place of boraflex panels ensures that the spent fuel pool
remains subcritical with keff [less than or equal to]
0.95 for these accidents. Fuel assembly movement will continue to be
controlled in accordance with plant procedures and LCO 3.7.13 which
specifies limits on fuel assembly storage locations. Periodic
surveillances of boron concentration are required every 7 days with
level verified every 7 days during fuel movement per LCO 3.7.11. Due
to the large inventory within the spent fuel pool, dilution of the
soluble boron within the pool is very unlikely without being
detected by operations personnel during auxiliary operator rounds or
available level detection systems. There is also a large margin
between the analyzed boron concentration to maintain the pool
subcritical keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 and the
current required value. The extension of the date does not
invalidate this conclusion. Therefore, the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated is not
significantly increased.
(2) Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated. Revising the date
for requiring that 2300 ppm boron be maintained in the spent fuel
pool, to address any potential dissolution of boraflex in neutron
absorber panels, does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident since the spent fuel pool is required to
be maintained with a high boron concentration. Assuming a boron
dilution event to the level required to reach keff > 0.95
conditions within the spent fuel pool would require either overfill
of the pool or a controlled feed and bleed process with unborated
water. In both cases, more than 105,000 gallons of unborated water
would be required to reach keff > 0.95. There is no
source of unborated water of this size available to reach the spent
fuel pool under procedural control or via a pipe break other than a
fire water system pipe break or SW [service water] leak through the
spent fuel pool heat exchangers. However, there are numerous alarms
available within the control room to indicate this condition
including high spent fuel pool water level and sump pump actuations
within the residual heat removal pump pit (lowest location in the
Auxiliary Building). Auxiliary operators also perform regularly
scheduled tours within the Auxiliary Building. This provides
sufficient time to terminate the event such that there is no
credible spent fuel pool dilution accident. Therefore, the
possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated is not created.
(3) Operation of Ginna Station in accordance with the proposed
change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. High levels of soluble boron in the spent fuel pool provides
a significant negative reactivity such that keff is
maintained [less than or equal to] 0.95. The proposed surveillance
frequency will ensure that the necessary boron concentration is
maintained. A boron dilution event which would remove the soluble
boron from the pool has been shown to not be credible. Therefore,
this change 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 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility,
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this
action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules 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 December 20, 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
[[Page 63347]]
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 accessible electronically through the ADAMS
Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://
www.nrc.gov). 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 20555-0001, 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 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Winston &
Strawn, 1400 L Street, 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 October 20, 1999, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at
the NRC Web site
(http://www.nrc.gov).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of November, 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Guy S. Vissing,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division of Licensing
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-30226 Filed 11-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P