[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25245-25247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12617]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-333]
James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant; 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-
[[Page 25246]]
59 issued to New York Power Authority (the licensee) for operation of
the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant located in Oswego, New
York.
The proposed amendment would allow reactor coolant system pressure
tests to be performed while remaining in the Cold Shutdown Mode. The
changes will also allow outage activities on other systems to continue.
The changes, with minor exceptions, adopt Special Operations Section
3.10.1, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing Operation,'' from
Standard Technical Specifications (STS), NUREG-1433. Minor exceptions
are required to ensure consistency within FitzPatrick TS, reflect
differences between FitzPatrick TS and STS, and ensure the same level
of Emergency Core Cooling System redundancy afforded by STS during
pressure testing. These exceptions will be eliminated when the
FitzPatrick TS are converted to STS.
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:
Operation of the FitzPatrick plant in accordance with the
proposed Amendment would not involve a significant hazards
consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, since it would not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The probability of a leak in the reactor coolant pressure
boundary during reactor coolant system pressure testing is not
increased by considering the reactor to be in Cold Shutdown. Since
the pressure tests are performed nearly water solid, at low decay
heat values, and near Cold Shutdown conditions, the stored energy in
the reactor core will be low. Under these conditions, the potential
for failed fuel and a subsequent increase in coolant activity is
minimized. In addition, secondary containment integrity will be
maintained, in accordance with the Special Operations LCO [Limiting
Conditions for Operation], and the secondary containment will be
capable of handling any airborne radioactivity or steam leaks that
could occur during the performance of hydrostatic or leak testing.
The required pressure testing conditions provide adequate assurance
that the consequences of a steam leak will be conservatively bounded
by the consequences of the postulated main steam line break outside
of primary containment. In the event of a large primary system leak,
the reactor vessel would rapidly depressurize, allowing the low
pressure core cooling systems to operate. The capability of these
systems would be adequate to keep the core flooded under this low
decay heat load condition. Small system leaks would be detected by
leakage inspections before significant inventory loss occurred.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are
not significantly increased.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from those previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not introduce any new accident
initiators or failure mechanisms since the changes do not involve
any changes to structures, systems, or components, do not involve
any change to the operation of systems, and alter procedures only to
the extent that the 212 deg.F limit may be exceeded during reactor
coolant system pressure testing with certain systems inoperable.
There are no alterations to plant systems designed to mitigate the
consequences of accidents. The only difference is that a different
subset of plant systems would be utilized for accident mitigation
than those utilized during the Hot Shutdown Mode. Therefore, the
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from those previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Since pressure tests are performed nearly water solid, at low
decay heat values, and near Cold Shutdown conditions, the stored
energy in the reactor core will be low. Under these conditions, the
potential for failed fuel and a subsequent increase in coolant
activity is minimized. Since secondary containment integrity will be
maintained, in accordance with the Special Operations LCO, the
secondary containment will be capable of handling any airborne
radioactivity or steam leaks that could occur during the performance
of hydrostatic or leak testing. 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 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 20555-0001, 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.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By June 19, 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 Reference and Documents Department,
Penfield
[[Page 25247]]
Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 13126. 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: 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 Jocelyn A. Mitchell, Acting Project
Directorate I-1: 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 20555-0001, and to Mr. Charles M. Pratt, 1633 Broadway,
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 1, 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 Reference and Documents Department,
Penfield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 13126.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of May 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Karen R. Cotton,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-12617 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
