[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 91 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11647]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 12, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-397]

 

Washington Public Power Supply System; 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 issuing an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-
21 issued to Washington Public Power Supply System (the licensee) for 
operation of its Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) plant, located in Benton 
County, Washington.
    The proposed amendment changes the plant operating license to 
rename three primary containment isolation check valves listed in the 
technical specifications. The licensee is making an administrative 
change to rename valve PI-EFC-X29d to make its number consistent with 
other similar valves in the technical specifications. The license is 
renaming excess flow check valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-EFCX-73e because 
they are replacing them with swing check valves that have a different 
numbering nomenclature.
    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 license has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:
    The Supply System has evaluated the proposed changes against the 
above standards as required by 10 CFR 50.91(a) and concluded that the 
change does not:
    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated:
    Revising the equipment piece number (EPN) for PI-EFC-X29d to PI-
EFC-X29b in Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 is an administrative 
change and provides consistency between the Technical Specifications 
and approved design bases. PI-EFC-X29d provides instrument line break 
(ILB) mitigation as analyzed in FSAR Section 15.6.2. Renaming PI-EFC-
X29d has no impact on FSAR accident analyses.
    Replacing existing excess flow check valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-
EFCX-73e with swing check valves and changing the EPNs has no impact on 
the containment isolation design basis described in FSAR Section 
6.2.4.3.2.2.3.3. This plant modification will conform the plant to the 
FSAR design basis. The FSAR describes the drywell and suppression 
chamber air sampling lines and indicates that ``the return lines are 
equipped with * * * a reverse-oriented excess flow check valve used as 
a simple check valve inside of containment.'' Replacement of the spring 
loaded excess flow check valve with a simple check valve (without a 
spring) meets plant design bases and 10CFR50 Appendix A, General Design 
Criterion (GDC) 56 criteria for containment isolation. The valve change 
and resulting EPN change do not impact the FSAR design analyses.
    Therefore, this change does not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated:
    No new mode of operation of any equipment results from the valve 
design change or EPN change for the three excess flow check valves. 
Renaming valve PI-EFC-X29d is an administrative change.
    The replacement, and subsequent EPN change, of inboard containment 
isolation excess flow check valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-EFCX-73e with 
swing check valves brings the plant into conformance with the analyzed 
design bases. Operation and maintenance of these valves in accordance 
with design and Technical Specification requirements provide assurance 
that primary containment will be maintained for the design basis LOCA 
event. The EPN change is required to conform to standard nomenclature 
for identification of penetration isolation valves.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety:
    The administrative name change for PI-EFC-X29d is made to ensure 
consistency between Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 and existing 
plant design documentation. Renaming this excess flow check valve 
provides consistency to the nomenclature of other excess flow check 
valves which use a dual tube method of draining condensate.
    The replacement and subsequent EPN change of inboard containment 
isolation valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-EFCX-73e brings the plant into 
conformance with the analyzed design bases. Maintenance and operation 
requirements are not modified in any manner. Adherence to the analyzed 
design bases will not affect the margin of safety for the design bases 
analysis.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.
    In preparing this request the Technical Specification Bases were 
reviewed for impact. No changes are necessary to address the EPN 
changes or the replacement of two excess flow check valves with swing 
check valves.
    Based on this review, the Supply System has determined that the 
three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Accordingly, the Supply 
System has determined that this amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration.
    The NRC 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 30-
day notice period expires. 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, 11555 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By June 13, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at the Richland Public Library, 955 
Northgate Street, Richland, Washington 99352. 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 particularly 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 supplemental 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 20555, 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 Theodore R. Quay, Director, Project 
Directorate IV-3: 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 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, the licensee's 
attorney.
    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 May 5, 1994, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at the Richland Public Library, 955 
Northgate Street, Richland, Washington 99352.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Mark Padovan,
Acting Project Manager Project Directorate IV-3 Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-11647 Filed 5-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M