[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 143 (Tuesday, July 27, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44696-44698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17035]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-333]


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-59 issued to Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for 
operation of the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant located in 
Oswego County, New York.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification Section 
5.5.6, ``Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,'' to allow a 
one-time extension of the interval between the Type A, integrated 
leakage rate tests (ILRTs), from 10 years to no more than 15 years.
    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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 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 change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed?
    The change does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
    The proposed revision to Technical Specifications adds a one 
time extension to the current interval for Type A testing. The 
current test interval of ten years, based on past performance, would 
be extended on a one time basis to fifteen 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. These generic conclusions were 
confirmed by a plant specific risk analysis performed using the 
current FitzPatrick Individual Plant Examination (IPE) internal 
events model.
    Testing and inspection programs in place at FitzPatrick also 
provide a high degree of assurance 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. 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. Inspections, including those required by the ASME [C]ode 
[American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel 
Code] and the maintenance rule are performed in order to identify 
indications of containment degradation that could affect that leak 
tightness.
    These factors in part and in aggregate show that a Type A test 
extension of up to five years will not represent a significant 
increase in the consequences of an accident.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed?
    The change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed. The proposed 
revision to Technical Specifications adds a one time extension to 
the current interval for Type A testing. The current test interval 
of ten years, based on past performance, would be extended on a one 
time basis to fifteen years from the last Type A test. The proposed 
extension to Type A testing cannot create the possibility of a new 
or different [kind] 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 change involve a significant reduction in [a] margin 
of safety?
    The change does not 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 ten years, based on past 
performance, would be extended on a one time basis to fifteen 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 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. This was further confirmed by a plant specific risk 
assessment using the current FitzPatrick Individual Plant 
Examination (IPE) internal events model that concluded the risk 
associated with this change is negligibly small and/or non-risk 
significant.

    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 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the 
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility.

[[Page 44697]]

Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the 
comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take 
place 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, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/
doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave 
to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
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/requestor 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. 
The petition must include 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/requestor 
who fails to satisfy 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.
    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.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to 
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 
for leave to intervene should also be sent to Mr. David E. Blabey, 1633 
Broadway, New York, New York 10019, attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 28, 2003, as supplemented on May 
20, 2004, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's 
PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available

[[Page 44698]]

records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-
mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July 2004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano,
Senior Project Manager, Section I, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-17035 Filed 7-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P