[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28123]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 14, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-397]

 

Washington Public Power Supply System; 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. 
NPF-21 issued to the Washington Public Power Supply System (the 
licensee) for operation of its Nuclear Project No. 2 located in Benton 
County, Washington.
    The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 
4.0.5.a. to delete the requirement to obtain prior written relief from 
the Commission for inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing 
(IST) of components conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. This change 
would provide relief from the ASME Code requirement in the interim 
between the submittal of a relief request and the NRC's issuance of a 
safety evaluation regarding the relief request. The change would allow 
the plant to operate in accordance with a proposed relief request while 
the NRC staff completed its review of the relief request.
    The licensee has also proposed to modify TS 4.0.5.b. to add 
definition for biennial or every-2-year inspection and testing 
activities. The definition of biennial or every 2 years will be a least 
once per 731 days.
    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 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 evaluated?
    [Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.a:]
    The proposed amendment allows continued plant operation in 
situations where ISI/IST Code compliance may be impractical. 
Continued operation is allowed only if the Code nonconformance has 
been determined not to be an unreviewed safety question or require a 
technical Specification change as defined by 10 CFR 50.59. Further, 
to support continued operation a relief request must be submitted 
for Commission approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a.
    The Change being proposed is administrative in nature and does 
not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the 
physical design and/or operation of the plant, nor doe it affect 
Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. 
Any relief from the approved ASME Section XI Code requirements, 
under the circumstances contemplated by NUREG-1482, will require a 
10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to ensure no Technical Specification changes 
or unreviewed safety questions exist. Further, the required 10 CFR 
50.59 review includes a determination as to ``if the probability of 
occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of 
equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety 
analysis report may be increased.'' This evaluation will ensure that 
actions are not taken that could involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    For the above reasons, operation of the facility in accordance 
with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents.
    [Regarding to change to TS 4.0.5.b:]
    Clarification of existing requirements as put forth in ASME XI 
for a biennial testing frequency as 731 days has no impact on the 
operation of the plant and does not have a credible impact on the 
possibility or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. The 
change does not result in any hardware or operating procedure 
changes. Hence, such a change cannot increase the probability of a 
previously evaluated accident. Because it does not involve any 
equipment modifications or operating mode changes, the consequences 
of an accident occurring with this change is the same as the 
consequences of an accident occurring without the change.
    Incorporation of the change in the WNP-2 Technical 
Specifications will not alter the probability of a previously 
evaluated accident nor increase the consequences of an accident.
    (2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    [Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.a:]
    The proposed change is administrative in nature and will not 
change the physical plant or the modes of operation defined in the 
WWNP-2 License. The change does not involve the addition or 
modification of equipment nor does it alter the design or operation 
of plant systems. Any relief requests from the approved ASME Section 
XI Code requirements, under the circumstances contemplated by NUREG-
1482, will require a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to ensure no Technical 
Specification changes or unreviewed safety questions exist before 
implementation. The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation will specifically 
address whether or not the ``possibility for an accident or 
malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the 
safety analysis report may be created.''
    Therefore, with the control provided by the 10 CFR 50.59 review 
process and the administrative nature of the change, operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated.
    [Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.b:]
    Because the proposed change introduces no new mode of plant 
operation nor does it require physical modification of the plant, 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident that those 
previously evaluated is not created by this change.
    (3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    [Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.a:]
    The margin of safety established by the 4.0.5.a ISI/IST program 
surveillance requirements is in ensuring that the systems are 
operable and will perform adequately to support the assumptions of 
the accident analysis. The change being proposed is admistrative in 
nature and does not alter the basis for assurance that safety-
related activities are performed correctly. The change does not 
alter the basis for any Technical Specification that is related to 
the establishment of or maintenance of a safety margin. Any relief 
request from the approved ASME Section XI Code requirements, under 
the circumstances contemplated by NUREG-1482, will require a 10 CFR 
50.59 evaluation to ensure that no Technical Specification changes 
or unreviewed safety questions exist as a result of the relief 
request. Further, the 10 CFR 50.59 review includes a determination 
as to ``if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any 
technical specification is reduced.'' This evaluation will ensure 
that actions are not taken that could involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    For these reasons, operation of the facility in accordance with 
the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    [Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.b:]
    Clarification of the ASME XI testing frequency of ``Biennially 
or every two years * * * At least once per 731 days'' has no impact 
on the operation of the plant and can not significantly impact the 
margin of safety created by the affected Technical Specifications. 
The change clarifies and improves the accuracy and understanding of 
the Technical Specifications. Because it does not have a technical 
or operational impact, the margin of safety created by the affected 
specification is not significantly affected by this change.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determination 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 December 14, 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, 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; 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 specific 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 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 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 hazard 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 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: 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 M.H. Philips, Jr., 
Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502, 
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 August 8, 1994, 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 Richland Public Library, 955 Northgate 
Street, Richland, Washington 99352.

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.
[FR Doc. 94-28123 Filed 11-10-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M