[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