[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30673]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 13, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DRP-64, issued to the Power Authority of the State of New York (the 
licensee), for operation of Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 
(Indian Point 3) located in Westchester County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would revise Section 4.4 of the Indian Point 
3 Technical Specifications. Specifically, TS 4.4.E.1 would be revised 
to allow a one-time extension to the 30-month interval requirement for 
leak rate testing of Residual Heat Removal (RHR) containment isolation 
values AC-732, AC-741, AC-MOV-743, AC-MOV-744, and AC-MOV-1870. This 
one-time extension for leak rate testing of the RHR valves would be 
deferred until prior to return to power following the current outage, 
which defined as prior to Tavg exceeding 350  deg.F.
    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 facilities in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a siginificant 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:
    Consistent with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92, the enclosed 
application is judged to involve no significant hazards based on the 
following information:
    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. The proposed change is limited to a one-time 
extension of the containment isolation valve leak rate test for RHR 
valves, AC-732, AC-741, AC-MOV-743, AC-MOV-744, and AC-MOV-1870. 
Testing the RHR containment isolation valves while Tavg is above 
200  deg.F and below 350  deg.F is considered to be a more practical 
time to test the valves because, in this configuration, the reactor 
coolant pumps and steam generators can be used to remove decay heat. 
Additionally, the revised testing procedure required to test the RHR 
containment isolation valves with Tavg above 200  deg.F and below 
350  deg.F can be performed in accordance with the current Technical 
Specifications. Therefore, the probability of a previously evaluated 
accident is not significantly increased. The consequences of a 
previously evaluated accident would not be significantly increased 
because each of the three RHR lines associated with valves AC-732, AC-
741, AC-MOV-743, AC-MOV-744, and AC-MOV-1870 has redundant isolation 
barriers and is supplied by the IVSWS [isolation valve seal water 
system] which would minimize any leakage past the isolation barriers. 
Further, due to the periodic surveillance that ensures that leakage 
from RHR components located outside containment does not exceed two 
gallons per hour, even if significant leakage past the RHR containment 
isolation valves occurred, this would not significantly affect off-site 
exposures.
    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 introduce new 
accident initiators or failure mechanisms since the change does not 
alter the physical characteristics of any plant system or component. 
The change is limited to a one-time extension to the leak rate test 
interval for RHR valves AC-732, AC-741, AC-MOV-743, AC-MOV-744, and AC-
MOV-1870.
    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. Testing the RHR containment isolation 
valves while Tavg is above 200  deg.F and below 350  deg.F is 
considered to be a more practical time to test the valves because, in 
this configuration, the reactor coolant pumps and steam generators can 
be used to remove decay heat. Additionally, the revised testing 
procedure required to test the RHR containment isolation valves with 
Tavg above 200  deg.F and below 350  deg.F can be performed in 
accordance with the current Technical Specifications. Therefore, there 
is not a significant reduction in a margin of safety. With respect to 
containment integrity, there is not a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety because each of the three RHR lines associated with valves 
AC-732, AC-741, AC-MOV-743, and AC-MOV-744, and AC-MOV-1870 has 
redundant isolation barriers and is supplied by the IVSWS which would 
minimize any leakage past the isolation barriers. The most recent test 
results associated with valves AC-732, AC-741, AC-MOV-743, AC-MOV-744, 
and AC-MOV-1870 show that the leak rates of the valves were well within 
the acceptance criteria of the tests. Further, due to the periodic 
surveillance that ensures that leakage from RHR components located 
outside containment does not exceed two gallons per hour, even if 
significant leakage past the RHR containment isolation valves occurred, 
this would significantly affect off-site exposures.
    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 amendments 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 
facilities, the Commission may issue the license amendments before the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final 
determination is that the amendments involve 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By January 12, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility 
operating licenses 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 20555 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. The 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 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 amendments.
    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 delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, 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 Michael J. Case: 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)(l)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated December 8, 1994, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 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 8th day of December 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Donald S. Brinkman,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-30673 Filed 12-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M