[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14832-14834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8100]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499]


Houston Lighting and Power Company, City Public Service Board of 
San Antonio Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas; 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses; Proposed Involves 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 Nos. 
NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company, et. al., 
(the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, 
located in Matagorda County, Texas. The original application dated May 
30, 1995, was previously published in the Federal Register on July 19, 
1995 (60 FR 37092). That application was supplemented by letter dated 
February 8, 1996.
    The proposed amendment would increase the spent fuel pool heat load 
licensing basis to provide greater flexibility for normal refueling 
practices.
    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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
because:
    (a) The Spent Fuel Pool conditions are not indicative of 
accident initiators.
    (b) Design and operability requirements of equipment important 
to safety are not affected.
    (c) Spent Fuel Pool boiling will not occur and the Spent Fuel 
Pool components will remain within their design bases.
    (d) The complete loss of Spent Fuel Pool cooling event has 
previously been analyzed and described in Supplement 6 to the Safety 
Evaluation Report, Appendix BB. The dose consequences for this event 
have been evaluated and the safety evaluation is described in 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 9.1.3.3.4. The results 
of the evaluation show that the Spent Fuel Pool components would 
remain within their design bases. Also, the dose consequences of 
iodine release as a result of Spent Fuel Pool boiling are 
significantly below the allowable dose limits of 10 CFR 100.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously because:

[[Page 14833]]

    (a) The operability of safety-related equipment is not impacted.
    (b) The probability of safety-related equipment malfunctioning 
is not increased.
    (c) The scope of the change does not establish a potential new 
accident precursor.
    (d) The Spent Fuel Pool design considers design basis heat loads 
for the modified refueling procedure which includes a full-core 
offload.
    (e) For the design basis case, the integrity of the Spent Fuel 
Pool Boraflex is not adversely impacted.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety because:
    (a) No fuel damage would occur as a result of the proposed 
change.
    (b) Technical Specification operability and surveillance 
requirements are not reduced.
    (c) The Spent Fuel Pool boiling doses would be significantly 
below the allowable dose limits of 10 CFR 100.
    (d) The modified refueling procedure (full-core offload) 
continues to have acceptable margins of safety.
    (e) The integrity of the Spent Fuel Pool Boraflex is not 
adversely impacted.

    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 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 May 3, 1996, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J. M. 
Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, Texas 77488. 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.

[[Page 14834]]

    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 William D. Beckner, Director, Project Directorate 
IV-1: 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 Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman & Holtzinger, 
P.C., 1615 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 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 May 30, 1995, as supplemented by letter 
dated February 8, 1996, which are 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. Hodges Learning 
Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of March 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Thomas W. Alexion,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-8100 Filed 4-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P