[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39913-39915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19804]


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

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 issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-21, issued to Washington Public Power Supply System (Supply System 
or the licensee), for operation of the Nuclear Project Number 2 (WNP-2) 
located in Benton County, Washington.
    This technical specification (TS) change authorizes the licensee to 
conduct TS Surveillance 3.8.4.8 (performance test) in lieu of TS 
Surveillance 3.8.4.7 (service test) for the WNP-2 Division 2 Class 1E 
125 VDC battery on a one-time basis. The change to the TS is authorized 
until the licensee can perform the sevice test during the next 
scheduled refueling outage or during the next unplanned outage of 
sufficient duration. This amendment has been requested in accordance 
with the notice of enforcement discretion granted to the licensee on 
July 17, 1998.
    This amendment needs to be processed on an exigent basis to 
promptly bring the plant into literal compliance with the technical 
specifications due to an inadvertent missed surveillance. Without this 
amendment the licensee would be required to shut down the plant and 
create an unnecessary plant transient.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The safety function of the Battery E-B1-2 is to provide 125 VDC 
power to the Division 2 safety-related loads including: RCIC Turbine 
Exhaust Valve, CAC Isolation Valves, Diesel (DG-2) Engine Backup 
Lube and Fuel Oil Pumps, Critical Switchgear control power, Critical 
Instrument Power Supply Inverter, NSSS Instrument and Control Board 
power, and control power to the Remote Shutdown Panel. This 
establishes the Division 2, 125 VDC Power system as an accident 
mitigation system, and is not an individual precursor of an 
evaluated accident. Battery E-B1-2 has no role in the initiation of 
design basis accidents (DBAs) or transients identified in the FSAR.
    The proposed change entails a one time relief from verbatim 
compliance with SR 3.8.4.7 by permitting the performance test in SR 
3.8.4.8 to suffice for performance of the SR 3.8.4.7 service test. 
Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) SR 3.8.4.7 presently allows 
the ``modified'' performance test in SR 3.8.4.8 to be performed in 
lieu of the service test in SR 3.8.4.7. The difference between the 
modified performance test short duration load of 400 amperes for six 
seconds and the performance test load of 350 amperes is small when 
compared to the 922 ampere one-minute rating of the battery. Testing 
at the levels defined in either situation provides a satisfactory 
battery performance demonstration. Additionally, documented test 
results since the date of manufacture (1994) of Battery E-B1-2 
substantiate the battery's capability to perform its intended safety 
functions. The performance test completed in April of 1997 
demonstrated a battery capacity of 104.7% which is above the battery 
replacement criteria of 80% capacity. The performance test performed 
when the battery was new as part of acceptance testing in May of 
1994 documented a capacity of 104.17%. Comparing the 1994 and 1997 
performance test results indicates that the battery has not degraded 
during the 4 years since it was manufactured and installed. Based on 
the substantial battery capacity demonstrated by these performance 
tests and the short duration peak load required by the service test 
(400 amps) as compared to the one-minute rating of the battery (922 
amps), the battery is fully capable of meeting the requirements of 
the modified performance test and the service test.
    Regular battery surveillances are routinely performed which 
include specific gravity and battery terminal voltage measurements. 
As a compensatory measure, in addition to the visual corrosion 
inspection, the Supply System will measure Battery E-B1-2 connection 
resistance on a 92 day interval and verify that the intercell 
connector resistance is  24.4 E-6 ohms. These 
surveillance measures will ensure that Battery E-B1-2 remains 
operable.
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. Since Battery E-B1-2 is operable and will remain in 
service, this action will not change the availability of any safety 
related equipment and no individual precursors of an accident are 
affected. Therefore, this change does not increase the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, since the 
functions and capabilities of systems designed to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident have not changed, the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated are not expected to increase. 
Therefore, there is no significant increase in the probability or 
consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The service test requires a discharge rate of 400 amps for the 
first six seconds and drops to less than 250 amps for a duration of 
two hours. The performance test requires a constant 350 amps 
throughout the test. Therefore, a difference of 50 amps for the 
first six seconds is not enveloped by the performance test. The 
service test requirement of 400 amps is small compared to the 
manufacturer's one-minute discharge rating of the battery (922 
amps). The 50 amperes for six seconds difference in the testing 
profiles of the SR 3.8.4.7 service test and the SR 3.8.4.8 
performance test was confirmed by the manufacturer as insignificant 
relative to demonstration of the battery capacity and its short 
duration discharge rate.
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors of 
that accident. New accident precursors may be created by 
modifications to the plant configuration. No modifications to plant 
configuration will result from this proposed one time surveillance 
test change. Documented test results demonstrate that Battery E-B1-2 
is capable of performing its intended safety function. Since Battery 
E-B1-2 has not been modified and will remain in operation during 
Operational Modes 1, 2, and 3 as required by the Technical 
Specifications, no new failure modes of the 125 VDC Distribution 
System are introduced.
    Therefore, this change will not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a signficant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The basis for the margin of safety for the Division 2, 125 VDC 
battery is the two hour operating time defined in the DC System

[[Page 39914]]

design basis. Battery E-B1-2 is properly sized using the methodology 
prescribed in IEEE Standard 485-1983 and includes the emergency 
loads anticipated during a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) with a 
coincident Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP), for two hours. 
Additionally, the battery is relatively new having been manufactured 
and installed in 1994 and is in the prime of its service life. The 
battery service test performed in April of 1995 documented 114.2 
volts @ 459 amps (in-rush) and 111.0 volts @ 279.0 amps (120 mins.). 
This service test encompassed the safety-related two hour duty cycle 
and demonstrated that the battery is able to supply and maintain the 
operable status of all emergency loads for their respective duty 
times.
    The performance test uses the manufacturer's two hour discharge 
rate and is used to establish baseline capacity for trending battery 
degradation. The modified performance draws approximately 700.1 
ampere-hours and the performance test draws 700 ampere-hours. Both 
of these tests are more severe than the service test which, when 
corrected for temperature, draws approximately 413 amp-hours. Since 
the performance test done in April 1997 demonstrated a capacity of 
104.7% (of 700 A-h) there is no decrease in the margin of safety 
when compared to the total amp-hour demands of the LOCA with LOOP 
duty cycle, (i.e., the service test).
    Battery E-B1-2 will not be removed from service during plant 
operation. Therefore, there is no change in availability of the 
Division 2 125 VDC battery, charger, or distribution system, and as 
such, there is no change in the base assumptions of our PRA models. 
Thus there is no impact on the WNP-2 PSA. Therefore, this change 
will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 August 24, 1998, 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; 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 a 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no

[[Page 39915]]

significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is requested, 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 Perry D. Robinson, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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 July 17, 1998, 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 20th day of July 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
L. Raynard Wharton,
Acting Project Manager Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-19804 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P