```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13173-13175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6882]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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

[[Page 13174]]

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 
[pressurized-water 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

[[Page 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
```