[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7665-7667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-2114]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-286]


Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; 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 Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3 and 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 allow a one time exception to the 10-
year frequency of the performance-based leakage rate testing program 
for Type A tests as required by Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance 
in NEI 94-01, revision 0, ``Industry Guideline For Implementing 
Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J'', and endorsed 
by 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, option B. The one time exception would 
allow an integrated leak rate test (ILRT) to be performed at a 
frequency of up to 15 years from the last test performed on December 2, 
1990.
    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?
    The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one 
time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The 
current test interval of 10 years, based on past performance, would 
be extended on a one time basis to 15 years from the last Type A 
test. The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot increase the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated since the 
containment Type A testing extension is not a modification and the 
test extension is not of a type that could lead to equipment failure 
or accident initiation. The proposed extension to Type A testing 
does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident since research documented in NUREG-1493 has found that, 
generically, very few potential containment leakage paths are not 
identified by Type B and C tests. The NUREG concluded that reducing 
the Type A (ILRT) testing frequency to one per twenty years was 
found to lead to an imperceptible increase in risk. IP3 provides a 
high degree of assurance through testing and inspection that the 
containment will not degrade in a manner detectable only by Type A 
testing. The last four Type A tests show leakage to be below 
acceptance criteria, indicating a very leak tight containment. 
Inspections required by the maintenance rule and ASME [American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers] code are performed in order to 
identify indications of containment degradation that could affect 
that leak tightness. The weld channel system will monitor the leak 
tightness of liner plate welds in the containment during plant 
operation as required by Technical Specifications. Type B and C 
testing required by Technical Specifications will identify any 
containment opening such as valves that would otherwise be detected 
by the Type A tests. These factors show that an IP3 Type A test 
extension will not represent a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident.
    2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one 
time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The 
current test interval of 10 years, based on past performance, would 
be extended on a one time basis to 15 years from the last Type A 
test. The proposed extension to Type A testing cannot create the 
possibility of a new or different type of accident since there are 
no physical changes being made to the plant and there are no changes 
to the operation of the plant that could introduce a new failure 
mode creating an accident or affecting the mitigation of an 
accident.
    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety?
    The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one 
time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The 
current test interval of 10 years, based on past performance, would 
be extended on a one time basis to 15 years from the last Type A 
test. The proposed extension to Type A testing will not 
significantly reduce the margin of safety. The NUREG 1493 generic 
study of the effects of extending containment leakage testing found 
that a 20 year extension in Type A leakage testing resulted in an 
imperceptible increase in risk to the public. NUREG-1493 found that, 
generically, the

[[Page 7666]]

design containment leakage rate contributes about 0.1 percent to the 
individual risk and that the decrease in Type A testing frequency 
would have a minimal affect on this risk since 95% of the potential 
leakage paths are detected by Type C testing. Online testing of the 
integrity of liner plate welds using the weld channel system and 
regular inspections will further reduce the risk of a containment 
leakage path going undetected.

    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 Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By February 23, 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 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: 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

[[Page 7667]]

should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Mr. John M. 
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).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 6, 2000, which was submitted 
by the Power Authority of the State of New York and which is 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 18th day of January 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Wunder,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-2114 Filed 1-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P