[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19801-19803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9475]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-397]


Energy Northwest; 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 Energy Northwest (the licensee) for operation of the 
Columbia Generating Station located in Benton County, Washington.
    The proposed amendment was originally submitted on February 20, 
2001, and published in the Federal

[[Page 19802]]

Register on March 21, 2001 (66 FR 15919). The revised amendment request 
dated April 6, 2001, completely replaces the original application 
submitted on February 20, 2001, and removes the restriction associated 
with the following Columbia Generating Station Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs) that prohibits performing the required testing 
during Modes 1 and 2.
    1. SR 3.8.1.9: This SR requires demonstrating that the diesel (DG) 
can reject its single largest load without the DG output frequency 
exceeding a specific limit.
    2. SR 3.8.1.10: This SR requires demonstrating that the DG can 
reject its full load without the DG output voltage exceeding a specific 
limit.
    3. SR 3.8.1.14: This SR requires starting and then running the DG 
continuously at or near full-load capability for greater than or equal 
to 24 hours.
    The proposed change also removes the restriction associated with 
the following SRs that prohibits performing the required testing during 
Modes 1, 2, and 3.
    1. SR 3.8.1.13: This SR requires demonstrating that the DG non-
emergency (non-critical) automatic trips are bypassed on an actual or 
simulated emergency core cooling system (ECCS) initiation signal.
    2. SR 3.8.1.17: This SR requires demonstrating that the DG 
automatic switchover from the test mode to ready-to-load operation is 
attained upon receipt of an ECCS initiation signal (while maintaining 
availability of the offsite source).
    The proposed change also allows the performance of SR 3.8.1.14 to 
satisfy SR 3.8.1.3 by adding Note 5 to SR 3.8.1.3. Note 5 allows SR 
3.8.1.14 to be performed in lieu of SR 3.8.1.3 provided the 
requirements, except the upper loading limits, of SR 3.8.1.3 are met.
    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 change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The DGs and their associated emergency loads are accident 
mitigating features, not accident initiating equipment. Therefore, 
there will be no significant impact on any accident probabilities by 
the approval of the requested amendment.
    The design of plant equipment is not being modified by these 
proposed changes. As such, the ability of the DGs to respond to a 
design basis accident will not be adversely impacted by these 
proposed changes. The proposed changes do not result in a plant 
configuration change for performance of the additional testing 
different from that currently allowed by the Technical 
Specifications. In addition, experience and further evaluation of 
the probability of a DG being rendered inoperable concurrent with or 
due to a significant grid disturbance support the conclusion that 
the proposed changes do not involve any significant increase in the 
likelihood of a loss of safety bus. Therefore, there would be no 
significant impact on any accident consequences.
    Based on the above, the proposed change to permit certain DG 
surveillance tests to be performed during plant operation will not 
involve a significant increase of accident probabilities or 
consequences.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    No new accidents would be created since no changes are being 
made to the plant that would introduce any new accident causal 
mechanisms. Equipment will be operated in the same configuration 
currently allowed by other DG SRs that allow testing in plant Modes 
1, 2, and 3. An interaction between the DG under test and the 
offsite power system that could lead to a consequential loss of 
safety bus during a grid disturbance is not deemed to be credible. 
This amendment request does not impact any plant systems that are 
accident initiators; neither does it adversely impact any accident 
mitigating systems.
    Based on the above, implementation of the proposed changes 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.
    Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of 
the fission product barriers to perform their design functions 
during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel 
cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. 
The proposed changes to the testing requirements for the plant DGs 
do not affect the operability requirements for the DGs, as 
verification of such operability will continue to be performed as 
required (except during different allowed Modes). Continued 
verification of operability supports the capability of the DGs to 
perform their required function of providing emergency power to 
plant equipment that supports or constitutes the fission product 
barriers. Consequently, the performance of these fission product 
barriers will not be impacted by implementation of this proposed 
amendment.
    In addition, the proposed changes involve no changes to 
setpoints or limits established or assumed by the accident analysis. 
On this and the above basis, no safety margins will be impacted. 
Therefore, implementation of the proposed changes would 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 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public

[[Page 19803]]

Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By May 17, 2001, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 
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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 Thomas 
C. Poindexter, 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 April 6, 2001, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of April 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack Donohew,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-9475 Filed 4-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P