[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 174 (Wednesday, September 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48254-48256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24127]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499]


STP Nuclear Operating Company; 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 Nos. 
NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to STP Nuclear Operating Company, (STPNOC, 
the licensee), for operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 
(STP), located in Matagorda County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 
4.0.5 to state that the inservice testing requirement for exercise 
testing in the closed direction for specified Unit 1 containment 
isolation valves shall not be required until the next plant shutdown to 
Mode 5 of sufficient duration to allow the testing or until the next 
refueling outage scheduled in March 1999.
    The licensee orally requested a Notice of Enforcement Discretion 
(NOED) on August 27, 1998 (this was followed up by letter dated August 
28, 1998). The NRC orally issued the NOED at 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 
27, 1998. Pursuant to NRC's policy regarding exercise of discretion for 
an operating facility, set out in Section VII.c, of the ``General 
Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions'' 
(Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, the letter documenting the issuance 
of the NOED was dated August 31, 1998. The NOED was to be effective 
until the next refueling outage or cold shutdown period of sufficient 
duration or until such time as a proposed TS amendment is reviewed and 
approved by the NRC.
    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

[[Page 48255]]

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; (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?
    No.
    The proposed change would relieve the requirement to apply 
Surveillance 4.0.5 to the subject check valves. Specifically, STPNOC 
would not have to perform the ASME Section XI exercise of the 
valves. Neither the valves nor the systems of which they are a part 
are accident initiators. The proposed change is essentially a 
deferral of surveillance test intervals, which has no potential 
effect on accident initiation. Therefore, there is no significant 
increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident previously 
evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report.
    Previous testing of the valves has demonstrated that they are 
capable of performing their design function. Therefore, the systems 
of which they are a part would be expected to perform accident 
mitigation and safe shutdown functions as designed. There is no 
effect on safety analysis assumptions from the proposed discretion. 
Consequently, there is no significant increase in the consequences 
of an accident previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of 
malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in 
the Safety Analysis Report because past leak testing of the subject 
check valves has shown the valves to be able to close and seal as 
required. The extended surveillance test interval involves no 
challenge to the function of the valves.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No.
    The effect of the proposed change is to extend the surveillance 
test interval. This extension has no effect on the way the subject 
systems are operated, nor does it affect the configuration of the 
station. It does not introduce the potential for any new failure 
modes. Therefore, the change does not involve a possibility of an 
accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated 
previously in the Safety Analysis Report.
    3. Does this change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    No.
    The proposed extension of the testing will not affect a margin 
of safety for any Technical Specification because there is no change 
in the design functions or performance of any of the subject 
systems. All design margins remain unchanged from the existing 
design basis. Therefore, the proposed extension of the testing does 
not involve a significant reduction in a 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 October 8, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. Hodges 
Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 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 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

[[Page 48256]]

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 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 Jack R. Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-5869, 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 28, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. 
Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of September 1998.

    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. 98-24127 Filed 9-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P