[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 185 (Friday, September 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57404-57406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24440]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-219]
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC; 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-16 issued to AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the licensee) for
operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station located in
Ocean County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendment would delete the reporting requirement for
the core spray sparger inspection.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
This change does not add components or make any other physical
change to the plant. The change involves inspection methodology. In
the SER supporting Amendment 70 to the Oyster Creek Technical
Specifications, dated January 26, 1984, the staff required that
future inspections of all accessible surfaces and welds of both core
spray spargers and repair assemblies be performed at each refueling
outage. In order to ensure that meaningful comparisons with previous
inspections could be made, the staff required such inspections be
performed in accordance with a method acceptable to them. To comply
with that requirement, prior to each refueling outage, Oyster Creek
submitted a detailed inspection plan. On December 2, 1999, the NRC
staff issued an SER which approved the methodology contained in
``BWR [Boiling-Water Reactor] Vessel and Internals Project BWR Core
Spray Internals Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines'' (BWRVIP-
18). Oyster Creek was an active participant in the development of
the guidelines and has committed to use them as a License condition.
In addition, the inspection results will be submitted to the NRC as
part of the ASME [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] Section
XI ISI [Inservice Inspection] Summary as required by the BWRVIP-18
Guidelines. The probability of an accident is not increased by this
change of inspection methodology.
With no physical changes to the plant or any operating parameter
and the use of a formally approved inspection methodology, the
consequences of any postulated accident are not increased.
2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different
[kind of] accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The core spray spargers and the other components of the Core
Spray System will not be modified by this change. The function of
the Core Spray System is to provide an alternate supply of cooling
water, that is independent of the Feedwater System, in the event of
an accident. This change will incorporate into the Oyster Creek
License a commitment to inspect the core spray spargers and other
reactor internals during each refueling outage in accordance with a
methodology approved for all BWRs by the NRC. The function and
operation of the Core Spray System are not affected by this change
in inspection methodology. Therefore, the possibility of a new or
different [kind of] accident not previously analyzed is not created.
3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with the
proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
In the SER supporting Amendment 47 to the Oyster Creek Technical
Specifications, dated May 15, 1980, the staff found the licensee's
design and installation of the repair bracket assemblies were in
accordance with currently accepted engineering practices. Further,
the analyses of the structural loads imposed by static, seismic and
thermal loadings demonstrated the bracket assembly's ability to
limit the crack opening to within an acceptable range should an
existing crack propagate around the pipe circumference. The
inspection requirement was imposed to ensure that any new cracks or
propagation of existing cracks would be discovered as soon as
possible so corrective action could be taken. This change does not
affect the interval between inspections but imposes a standardized,
comprehensive methodology approved by the NRC. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the
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
[[Page 57405]]
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 October 23, 2000, 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 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 Kevin P. Gallen, Esquire, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20036-5869,
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
[[Page 57406]]
balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and
2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 21, 2000, as supplemented on June
14, 2000, 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 18th day of September 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Helen N. Pastis,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-24440 Filed 9-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P