[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 3, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 388-390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-103]



[[Page 388]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-286]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License 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 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., for operation of 
the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3) located in 
Westchester County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would constitute a conversion from the 
Current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITSs) based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications (STS) for Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 
1995. NUREG-1431 was developed by the Commission's staff through 
working groups composed of both NRC staff members and industry 
representatives, and has been endorsed by the staff as part of an 
industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) for nuclear power plants. As part of this 
submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria contained in the 
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to 
the CTS, and, using NUREG-1431 as a basis, proposed an ITS for IP3. The 
criteria in the Final Policy Statement were subsequently added to 10 
CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a rule change that was 
published in the Federal Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and 
became effective on August 18, 1995. The licensee requested the 
conversion amendment in a letter dated December 11, 1998, as 
supplemented on December 15, 1998, May 17, 1999, August 16, 2000, 
September 14, 2000, September 27, 2000, and November 30, 2000.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into 
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes and 
less restrictive changes.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1433 
and does not involve technical changes to the CTS. The proposed changes 
include: (a) Providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for NUREG-1431 
bracketed information (information that must be supplied on a plant-
specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) 
identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) 
changing NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing licensee 
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events. Relocated changes are those involving relocation of 
requirements and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or 
variables that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. Relocated 
changes are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within 
any of the four criteria specified in the 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) and 
may be relocated to appropriate licensee controlled documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described 
in the attachment of the licensee's December 11, 1998, submittal, which 
is entitled, ``Application of the NRC Final Policy Statement Selection 
Criteria to the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 Technical 
Specifications'' (Split Report) in Volume 1 of the submittal. The 
affected structures, systems, components or variables are not assumed 
to be initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate 
accident or transient events. The requirements and surveillances for 
these affected structures, systems, components, or variables will be 
relocated from the TSs to administratively controlled documents such as 
the quality assurance program, the final safety analysis report (FSAR), 
the ITS BASES, the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) that is 
incorporated by reference in the FSAR, the Core Operating Limits Report 
(COLR), the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice 
Testing (IST) Program, or other licensee-controlled documents. Changes 
made to these documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
appropriate control mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC 
review and approval. In addition the affected structures, systems, 
components, or variables are addressed in existing surveillance 
procedures that are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed 
changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in 
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the STS that is more 
restrictive than the CTS that the licensee proposes to adopt in the 
ITS, the licensee has provided an explanation as to why it has 
concluded that adopting the more restrictive requirement is desirable 
to ensure safe operation of the facility because of specific design 
features of the plant.
    Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is 
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are 
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to 
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be 
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to 
individual plants on a plant specific basis were the result of (a) 
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from 
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution 
of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 were 
reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they are 
consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. The 
licensee's design is being reviewed to determine if the specific design 
basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical basis for 
the model requirements in NUREG-1431, thus providing a basis for the 
ITS, or if relaxation of the requirements in the CTS is warranted based 
on the justification provided by the licensee.
    These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less 
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in 
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an 
analyzed accident or transient event.
    In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are different to the 
requirements in both the CTS and the Standard Technical Specifications 
(STS) NUREG-1431. These proposed beyond-scope issues to the ITS 
conversion are as follows:

[[Page 389]]

    (1) ITS 3.3 Setpoint and Allowable Changes Associated with the 
Adoption of the ITS
    The licensee proposes to revise the setpoints or allowable values 
associated with power range flux, pressurizer pressure, overtemperature 
delta T, overpower deltaT, low reactor coolant loop flow, high 
pressurizer water level, steam generator water level, containment 
pressure, auto stop oil pressure, high steam line differential pressure 
and high steam flow.
    (2) ITS 3.4.11 Pressurizer Power Operated Relief Valves (PORVs)
    The licensee proposes a completion time of 7 days for restoration 
of an inoperable PORV or block valve as opposed to the 72 hours 
specified in the STS.
    (3) ITS SR 3.4.14.1 Frequency (DOC M.5)
    The licensee proposes to extend the frequency for the pressure 
isolation valve leakage testing surveillance from 18 to 24 months. This 
change also extends PIV leakage testing from 9 months to 12 months.
    (4) ITS 3.6.10, Weld Channel and Penetration Pressurization System 
(DOC L.1 and M.3)
    The licensee proposes changes to the CTS requirements by focusing 
on ensuring the safety function (containment integrity) at individual 
component level rather than conducting repairs to restore zone 
operability.
    (5) ITS 3.7.2, Inclusion of Main Steam Check Valves (DOC L.1)
    At IP3 each main steam line has one Main Steam Isolation Valve 
(MSIV) and one Main Steam Check Valve (MSCV). In the STS, TS 3.7.2 
conditions address only the MSIV operability. The licensee proposes to 
add MSCV operability to ITS 3.7.2 Conditions, which requires certain 
changes and additions to the Required Actions, beyond those in the 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.
    By February 2, 2001, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 
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 a 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.
    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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 John 
Fulton, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Generating Co., 
Pilgrim Station, 600 Rocky Hill Road, Plymouth, MA 02360, 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).
    If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may 
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior 
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further 
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant 
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated December 11, 1998, as supplemented on 
December 15, 1998,

[[Page 390]]

May 17, 1999, August 16, 2000, September 14, 2000, September 27, 2000, 
and November 30, 2000, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Project Manager, Section I, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-103 Filed 1-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P