[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 118 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33445-33447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16071]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Power Authority of the State of New York for
operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3)
located in Westchester County, New York.
The proposed amendment would permit changing the indicated control
rod misalignment from the current limit of 12 steps to an indicated
misalignment of 18 steps when the core power is less than
or equal to 85% of rated thermal power (RTP) and 12 steps
when above 85% of RTP.
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
evaluated?
Response: No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation in WCAP-14668,
the Authority has determined that all pertinent licensing basis
acceptance criteria have been met, and the margin of safety as defined
in the TS [Technical Specifications] Bases is not reduced in any of the
IP3 licensing basis accident analysis. Increasing the magnitude of
allowed control rod indicated misalignment is not a contributor to the
mechanistic cause of an accident evaluated in the FSAR [final safety
analysis report]. Neither the rod control system nor the rod position
indicator function is being altered. Therefore, the probability of an
accident previously evaluated has not significantly increased. Because
design limitations continue to be met, and the integrity of the reactor
coolant system pressure boundary is not challenged, the assumptions
employed in the calculation of the offsite radiological doses remain
valid. Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated
will not be significantly increased.
(2) Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation in WCAP-14668,
the Authority has determined that all pertinent licensing basis
acceptance criteria have been met, and the margin of safety as defined
in the TS is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing basis accident
analysis. Increasing the magnitude of allowed control rod indicated
misalignment is not a contributor to the mechanistic cause of any
accident. Neither the rod control system nor the rod position indicator
function is being altered. Therefore, an accident which is new or
different than any previously evaluated will not be created.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety?
Response: No. Based on the Westinghouse evaluation in WCAP-14668,
the Authority has determined that all pertinent licensing basis
acceptance criteria have been met, and the margin of safety as defined
in the TS Bases is not reduced in any of the IP3 licensing basis
accident analysis based on the changes to safety analyses input
parameter values as discussed in WCAP-14668. Since the evaluations in
Section 3.0 of WCAP-14668 demonstrate that all applicable acceptance
criteria continue to be met, the proposed change will not involve a
significant reduction in 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
[[Page 33446]]
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
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 July 21, 1997, 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 10610. 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. 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, 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 January 27, 1997, as supplemented May
16, 1997, 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
10610.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June 1997.
[[Page 33447]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Project Manager, Project Directorate 1-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-16071 Filed 6-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
