Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13173

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 or 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 be 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 S. Singh

Bajwa: 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 Jay E. Silbert, Esquire,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC,

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 March 6, 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

Calvert County Library, Prince

Frederick, Maryland 20678.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alexander W. Dromerick,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

I–1, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–6881 Filed 3–18– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[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 New York Power Authority

(NYPA) for operation of the Indian Point

Nuclear Generating Unit No. 3 (IP3)

located in Westchester County, New

York.

The proposed amendment would add

several containment isolation valves to

the list of containment isolation valves

in the technical specifications and

amends the technical specifications to

allow the use of performance-based

methods described in 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Option B for containment

leakage rate testing.

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. The

proposed amendment changes the TS to

implement 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J,

Option B, by referencing Regulatory

Guide 1.163, ‘‘Performance-Based

Containment Leakage-Test Program.’’

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
13174 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices

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 addition of existing Containment

Isolation Valves into the Table of

Containment Isolation Valves in the

Technical Specifications does not change the

design, operation or testing of the plant. The

valves are currently tested and identified in

the Final Safety Analysis Report as

Containment Isolation Valves. The addition

of the valves is an administrative change

with no effect on the probability or

consequences of an accident.

The proposed Technical Specification is

intended to incorporate a rule change, i.e., 10

CFR 50, Appendix J, Option B. Incorporation

of the rule change into the Technical

Specifications affects the test requirements

and frequency by which the containment and

containment penetrations are tested to verify

that the containment boundary will maintain

leakage within the limits assumed in

accident analyses. The testing of the

containment structure and penetrations

under Option B does not increase the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated. No equipment changes are

required for the adoption of Option B so

modifications to equipment cannot be an

accident initiator. The proposed testing

provisions and testing frequency are based on

Regulatory Guide 1.63 which endorses the

provisions of NEI 94–01 and, by

incorporation, ANSI/ANS 56.8. These

provisions do not change the way that the

plant is operated. Testing is not performed on

the containment during plant operations and

penetrations are tested in accordance with

approved procedures so they are not tested

during plant operations if they could initiate

an accident. Testing frequency changes do

not require physical changes to the plant or

alter the manner in which the plant is

operated so changed frequencies do not

contribute to initiation of an accident. The

testing of the containment structure and

penetrations under Option B does not

increase the consequences of an accident

previously evaluated. The test frequency for

Type A integrated leak rate testing may be

reduced up to ten years and the frequency of

Type B and C tests, excluding airlocks, may

be reduced up to 3 years. NUREG–1493, a

technical basis for the rule adding Option B,

assessed the risk associated with increasing

the frequency for Type A, B and C testing for

a period greater than allowed by Option B.

The study concluded that there was a small

increase in risk associated with extending the

Type A test because the integrated leak rate

tests identify only a few leakage paths (i.e.,

[a] small percentage of the leakages) and that

most leaks have marginally above allowable

requirements. Given the insensitivity of risk

to the containment leak rate and the small

fraction of leakage detected solely by Type A

testing, increasing the Type A test interval

has minimal effect on the public. The

NUREG–1493 assessment found that

performance based leakage testing would

have a small incremental effect on risk even

though the majority of leakage was found by

Type B and C testing. From the above, NYPA

[New York Power Authority] concluded that

the proposed change does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

(2) Does the proposed License amendment

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated?

Changing the list of containment isolation

valves for consistency with the Final Safety

Analysis Report without changing design,

operation or testing of the plant cannot create

a new or different type of accident.

The incorporation of 10 CFR 50, Appendix

J, Option B, into the Technical Specifications

affects the test requirements and frequency

by which the containment and containment

penetrations are tested. There are no physical

changes made to the plant and there are no

changes to the operation of the plant so no

new failure modes will be introduced and the

ability to perform accident mitigating

functions will not be altered. The change will

not create a new or different kind of accident

from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) Does the proposed License amendment

involve a significant reduction in a margin of

safety?

The addition of four isolation valves to the

Table of Containment Isolation Valves in the

Technical Specifications has no effect on any

margin of safety because the change is strictly

to reflect current design, operation and

testing of the plant.

The incorporation of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Option B, into the Technical

Specifications affects the test requirements

and frequency by which the containment and

containment penetrations are tested. The

study in NUREG–1493, a generic study

providing technical support for Option B,

determined that the effect of increasing

surveillance intervals resulted in minimal

increased the risk to public [sic]. NUREG–

1493 found the design containment leakage

rate contributes about 0.1 percent to the

individual risk. The decreased frequency of

Type A and B testing has minimal effect on

this risk since most (about 95 percent)

potential leakage paths are detected by Type

A testing. The model of component failure

with time identified in NUREG–1493

indicates that the number of components

tested could be reduced by 60 percent with

less than a threefold increase in risk. The

extension of Type C tests beyond the current

30 month interval requires successful

completion of two consecutive leakage rate

tests. NUREG–1493, Appendix A, indicates

that a component which does not fail within

two operating cycles will have further

failures governed by random failure. Table 1

in Appendix A to the NUREG also indicates

that, for a representative PWR [pressurizedwater reactor], extending Type C tests to the

full test interval results in less than a fourfold

increase in risk that was originally less than

0.03 percent of the total risk. The change will

not involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety because there is a minimal

increase in public risk.

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 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, 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 April 18, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 1997 / Notices 13175

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 10601.

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, 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 S. Singh

Bajwa: 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,

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 13, 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 10601.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George F. Wunder,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–6882 Filed 3–18– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Planning and Procedures; Notice of

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning

and Procedures will hold a meeting on

April 2, 1997, Room T–2B1, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance, with the exception of

a portion that may be closed pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss

organizational and personnel matters

that relate solely to internal personnel

rules and practices of ACRS, and

information the release of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, April 2, 1997—1:30 P.M.

Until 3:30 P.M.

The Subcommittee will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and related

matters. It may also discuss the

qualifications of candidates for