[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