[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11456-11458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5948]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-286]
Power Authority of the State of New York; 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-64 issued to New York Power Authority for operation of the Indian
Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) located in Westchester
County, New York.
The proposed amendment would change the pressure-temperature and
overpressure limits.
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) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously analyzed?
Response:
The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed
accident. The pressure-temperature limit changes proposed by this
amendment are based on supporting data and evaluation methodologies
previously submitted to the NRC in References 2, 3 and 4 [see
application dated February 27, 1998]. These limits are based upon
the irradiation damage prediction methods of Regulatory Guide 1.99,
Revision 2. The LTOPS [low-temperature overpressure protection]
changes contained in this submittal have been conservatively
adjusted in accordance with the new pressure-temperature limits, in
accordance with the information contained in References 2 and 5 [see
application dated February 27, 1998] and ASME Code Case N-514.
The revised version of Section 3.1.A.8 clarifies existing
requirements related to the OPS [overpressure protection system]
system and adds an eight hour completion time for compensating
actions, consistent with the STS. The changes to Section 3.1.A.1.h,
l, and j revise the requirements associated with the start of an RCP
[reactor coolant pump]. These changes improve specification clarity
and do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident.
The Technical Specification changes associated with the
restriction on SI [safety injection] pumps provides added
conservatism to the Technical Specifications and limits the
likelihood of an RHR [residual heat removal] overpressurization
event. Current plant procedures prohibit actuation of any SI pumps
when RHR is in service, except during testing, loss of RHR cooling,
or reduced inventory operations. Therefore, the change to the
Technical Specifications will not alter current plant operation.
(2) Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response:
[[Page 11457]]
The proposed license amendment does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
analyzed. The pressure-temperature limits are updating the existing
limits by taking into account the effects of radiation
embrittlement, utilizing criteria defined in Regulatory Guide 1.99,
Revision 2, and extending the effective period to 13.3 EFPYs
[effective full-power years]. The updated OPS limits have been
adjusted to account for the effect of irradiation on the limiting
reactor vessel material. These changes do not affect the way the
pressure-temperature or OPS limits provide plant protection and no
physical plant alterations are necessary.
The revisions to Section 3.1.A.8 concerning the OPS system
improve on the clarity of existing specifications and add a
completion time for compensating actions that is consistent with the
STS. These changes do not involve any hardware modifications and do
not affect the function of the OPS system.
The revisions concerning the operation of SI pumps bring the
Technical Specifications into line with current operating
procedures. The changes to Specification 3.1.A.1.h, l, and j provide
specification clarity and are more conservative than existing
Technical Specifications. Therefore, the changes cannot create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response:
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety. The margins of safety against fracture
provided by the pressure-temperature limits are those limits
specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, ASME [American Society of
Mechanical Engineers] Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI,
Appendix G, and Reference 4 [see application dated February 27,
1998]. The guidance in these documents has been utilized to develop
the pressure-temperature limits with the requisite margins of safety
for the heatup and cooldown conditions. The new LTOP limits are
based upon References 2 and 5 [see application dated February 27,
1998] and ASME Code Case N-514.
The revisions to Section 3.1.A.8 clarify the requirements
associated with the OPS system. The revisions associated with the
operation of SI pumps with RHR in service (Sections 3.3.A.3, 8, 9
and 10) and the changes regarding RCP starts (Section 3.1.A.1.h, l,
and j) are more conservative than the current Technical
Specifications, and are consistent with plant operating procedures.
Therefore, they do not reduce 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to Room 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 April 8, 1998, 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 Public Library, 100 Martine
Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. 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
[[Page 11458]]
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails
to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with
respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate
as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following
message addressed to Susan F. Shankman: petitioner's name and telephone
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Mr. David Blabey,
10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019, 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 February 27, 1998, 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 Public Library, 100
Martine Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of March 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-5948 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
