[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14835-14837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8098]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 allow a one-time extension of the test
intervals for the pressurizer safety valve (PSV) setpoint and snubber
functional testing that is due in may 1996.
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
[[Page 14836]]
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:
A. Pressurizer Safety Valves
(1) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response
The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. As discussed in Section II, ``Evaluation of
Changes,'' based on the analysis of the test results for the past
four outages, there is a high level of confidence that PSV setpoint
drift at IP3 is not time dependent. Past test results also indicate
that out of 69 set pressure ``pops'', 46 were within plus or minus
1% of the 2485 psig setpoint and only two test results exceeded plus
or minus 3% allowance. These test results indicate a high degree of
reliability for the PSVs. Therefore, a one-time extension of the
test interval for the PSVs till the next refueling outage but no
later than May 31, 1997 is not expected to adversely affect the
functioning of the PSVs and will not involve 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?
Response
The proposed license amendment does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 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
different than addressed in the Final Safety Analysis Report. Also,
as stated, the increased surveillance interval (one-time only) is
not expected to adversely affect the functioning of the PSVs and
will not result in any new failure modes. Therefore, the proposed
change will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response
The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change, for one-time
extension of the test interval, for the PSVs does not adversely
affect the performance of any safety related system, component or
instrument or safety system setpoints and does not result in
increased severity of any of the accidents considered in the safety
analysis. Based on past test results, the one-time extension for the
PSV testing should not adversely affect the lift settings or the
relieving capacities of the valves, and the safety limit of 2735
psig (110% of design pressure) as described in Section 2.2 of the
Technical Specifications will be protected. Therefore, this change
does not create a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
B. Snubbers
(1) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated?
Response
The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. An inoperable snubber could cause an increase
in probability of structural damage to piping in the event of
thermal or dynamic loads. As discussed in Section II, ``Evaluation
of Changes,'' based on the last six snubber functional tests, 136
snubbers were functionally tested and only 1 snubber failure was
noted. Thus, past snubber functional test results indicate a high
degree of reliability for the snubbers. Furthermore, past test
results also indicate a high level of confidence that snubber
failure at IP3 is not time dependent. Therefore, a one-time
extension of the functional test interval for the snubbers till the
next refueling outage but no later than May 31, 1997, will not
significantly increase the probability of snubber inoperability and
will not involve 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?
Response
The proposed license amendment does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change does not involve the addition of any
new or different type of equipment, nor does it involve the
operation of equipment required for safe operation of the facility
in a manner different from those addressed in the Final Safety
Analysis Report. Also, as stated, the proposed one-time interval
extension is not expected to adversely affect the functioning of the
snubbers and will not result in any new failure modes. Therefore,
the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response
The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. The proposed change, for one-time
extension of the test interval, for the snubber functional testing
does not adversely affect the performance of any safety related
system, component or instrument or safety system setpoints and does
not result in increased severity of any of the accidents considered
in the safety analysis. Also, snubber visual inspection frequency is
based on maintaining a constant level of snubber protection to
systems, and the visual inspection frequency will remain the same.
Therefore, this one-time functional testing extension has no adverse
effect on any margin of safety and, therefore, does not create 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 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 6D22, 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.
[[Page 14837]]
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By May 3, 1996, 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 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. Charles M.
Pratt, 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 March 14, 1996, 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 28th day of March 1996.
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. 96-8098 Filed 4-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
