[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70807-70809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33998]


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

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.
    The proposed amendment would change Section 3.8.1.8 of the 
Technical Specifications (TS) to allow for the capability to manually 
transfer between the preferred and alternate offsite power sources 
during Modes 1 and 2.
    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

[[Page 70808]]

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 proposed change would remove a specific restriction to allow 
for the performance of the verification of the manual transfer of 
the unit power supply from the preferred source to the alternate 
source during Modes 1 and 2. The transfer of the unit power supply 
from the preferred source to the alternate source is not an 
initiator of any previously analyzed accident. Therefore, this 
proposed change does not increase the frequency of such accidents.
    This test is performed by conducting a manual transfer which 
momentarily parallels the 230 kV and 115 kV offsite AC power sources 
through step-down transformers. Paralleling of offsite AC power 
sources is a controlled evolution and the risk associated with the 
performance of the test while the unit is at power is not 
significant.
    This conclusion is based upon several factors such as: (1) the 
frequency and voltages are verified to be within the required range 
prior to paralleling the two offsite AC power sources; (2) breaker 
interlocks ensure that voltage is available from the alternate 
circuit and that the alternate circuit is connected to the load 
prior to opening the preferred circuit; (3) the test does not result 
in deenergization of any 4.16 kV emergency bus or challenge to any 
protective relay and the potential for electrical perturbations on 
the distribution system is the same whether performing the transfer 
while the unit is at power or while shutdown; and (4) operating 
history indicates that transferring offsite AC power sources while 
the unit was shutdown or operating has been performed satisfactorily 
without electrical distribution system perturbations.
    The appropriate plant conditions for performance of the 
surveillance test will continue to be controlled to ensure that any 
potential consequences are not significantly increased. This control 
method has been previously determined to be acceptable as indicated 
in Generic Letter 91-04, ``Changes in Technical Specification 
Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle.''
    Therefore, operation of WNP-2 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability 
or consequences 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 proposed change removes a specific restriction on the plant 
conditions for performing a surveillance test, but does not change 
the method of performance. The appropriate plant conditions for 
performance of the surveillance test will continue to be controlled 
to ensure that the possibility for a new or different type of 
accident is not created. This control method has been previously 
determined to be acceptable as indicated in Generic Letter 91-04.
    The proposed change does not impact the ability of the 
electrical distribution system to function and mitigate electrical-
related transients or accidents. No new failure modes will be 
introduced and no existing failure modes will be impacted by the 
proposed change to Technical Specification Surveillance Requirement 
3.8.1.8. Operating history indicates that transferring offsite AC 
power sources while the unit was shutdown or operating has been 
performed satisfactorily without electrical distribution system 
perturbations (i.e., during transfer of SM-3 to TR-S and transfer of 
SM-8 to TR-B).
    Therefore, the operation of WNP-2 in accordance with the 
proposed amendment 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 significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The margin of safety considered in determining the appropriate 
plant conditions for performing the surveillance test will continue 
to be controlled to ensure that there is no significant reduction. 
This control method has been previously determined to be acceptable 
as indicated in Generic Letter 91-04.
    The proposed removal of a specific mode restriction does not 
impact the functional design, logic or control scheme of any 
component or system. The AC sources in one division must be operable 
and independent (to the extent possible). One offsite circuit is 
allowed to be tied to all engineered safety feature buses, and not 
violate the separation criteria, provided the necessary automatic 
transfer capability is operable.
    If power is supplied to SM-8 by means of TR-B, then one offsite 
circuit is inoperable (TS-S) because the automatic transfer 
capability is inoperable. The lineup of SM-8 to TR-B is bounded by 
and requires a voluntary entry into Technical Specification 3.8.1, 
``AC Sources--Operating.''
    Although a complete loss of offsite power is not anticipated as 
the result of the manual transfer, a risk analysis has been 
performed for the plant configuration of the unavailability of TR-S 
and TR-B for the period of time allowed by the Limiting Condition 
for Operation for Technical Specification 3.8.1.8. It was determined 
that the evaluated plant configuration was not risk significant 
(i.e., a core damage probability of <1E-6). In addition, operating 
history shows that transferring of offsite AC power sources has been 
performed several times without electrical distribution system 
perturbations.
    Therefore, operation of WNP-2 in accordance with the proposed 
amendment 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 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 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 January 21, 1999, 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

[[Page 70809]]

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 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.
    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, 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 December 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 18th day of December 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mel B. Fields,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-33998 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P