[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