[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