[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52451-52453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22032]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Power Authority of the State of New York (the
licensee) for operation of the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No.
3 located in Westchester County, New York.
The proposed amendment would revise Sections 3.1 and 4.3 of the
Technical Specifications (TSs) to extend the applicability of the
pressure-temperature (P/T) and overpressure protection system (OPS)
limit curves from 13.3 effective full-power years (EFPY) to 16.2 EFPY.
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
[[Page 52452]]
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 analyzed?
Response: The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a
previously analyzed accident. This amendment proposes to extend the
EFPY limit from 13.3 to 16.2 for the pressure-temperature and
overpressure protection system limit curves. This extension in EFPYs
is the result of new fluence values calculated using the ENDF/B-VI
database. The methodology used to generate the P/T and OPS
[overpressure protection system] limit curves was approved by the
NRC in Amendment 179 (Reference 1) [to the licensee's submittal] and
is not being changed by this amendment.
2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated?
Response: The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously analyzed. The P/T and OPS limit curves are being extended
through 16.2 EFPYs based on new fluence values calculated using the
ENDF/B-VI database. These changes do not affect the way the
pressure-temperature or OPS limits provide plant protection and no
physical plant alterations are necessary.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety?
Response: The proposed amendment does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety. The P/T and OPS limit curves were
developed using methodology approved by the NRC for Amendment 179
(Reference 1). This amendment request seeks to revise only the EFPY
limits associated with these curves. The new EFPY limits are based
upon revised fluence values obtained using the ENDF/B-VI database.
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. 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 September 28, 2000, 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, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 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
[[Page 52453]]
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, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
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 Brent L. Brandenburg, Esq., 4 Irving
Place, New York, New York 10003, 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 April 27, 2000, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 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 23rd day of August 2000.
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. 00-22032 Filed 8-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P