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

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 issuing an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-

21 issued to Washington Public Power Supply System (the licensee) for

operation of its Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) plant, located in Benton

County, Washington.

The proposed amendment changes the plant operating license to

rename three primary containment isolation check valves listed in the

technical specifications. The licensee is making an administrative

change to rename valve PI-EFC-X29d to make its number consistent with

other similar valves in the technical specifications. The license is

renaming excess flow check valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-EFCX-73e because

they are replacing them with swing check valves that have a different

numbering nomenclature.

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 license has provided its analysis of

the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented

below:

The Supply System has evaluated the proposed changes against the

above standards as required by 10 CFR 50.91(a) and concluded that the

change does not:

(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously evaluated:

Revising the equipment piece number (EPN) for PI-EFC-X29d to PI-

EFC-X29b in Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 is an administrative

change and provides consistency between the Technical Specifications

and approved design bases. PI-EFC-X29d provides instrument line break

(ILB) mitigation as analyzed in FSAR Section 15.6.2. Renaming PI-EFC-

X29d has no impact on FSAR accident analyses.

Replacing existing excess flow check valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-

EFCX-73e with swing check valves and changing the EPNs has no impact on

the containment isolation design basis described in FSAR Section

6.2.4.3.2.2.3.3. This plant modification will conform the plant to the

FSAR design basis. The FSAR describes the drywell and suppression

chamber air sampling lines and indicates that ``the return lines are

equipped with * * * a reverse-oriented excess flow check valve used as

a simple check valve inside of containment.'' Replacement of the spring

loaded excess flow check valve with a simple check valve (without a

spring) meets plant design bases and 10CFR50 Appendix A, General Design

Criterion (GDC) 56 criteria for containment isolation. The valve change

and resulting EPN change do not impact the FSAR design analyses.

Therefore, this change does not increase 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:

No new mode of operation of any equipment results from the valve

design change or EPN change for the three excess flow check valves.

Renaming valve PI-EFC-X29d is an administrative change.

The replacement, and subsequent EPN change, of inboard containment

isolation excess flow check valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-EFCX-73e with

swing check valves brings the plant into conformance with the analyzed

design bases. Operation and maintenance of these valves in accordance

with design and Technical Specification requirements provide assurance

that primary containment will be maintained for the design basis LOCA

event. The EPN change is required to conform to standard nomenclature

for identification of penetration isolation valves.

Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety:

The administrative name change for PI-EFC-X29d is made to ensure

consistency between Technical Specification Table 3.6.3-1 and existing

plant design documentation. Renaming this excess flow check valve

provides consistency to the nomenclature of other excess flow check

valves which use a dual tube method of draining condensate.

The replacement and subsequent EPN change of inboard containment

isolation valves PI-EFCX-72f and PI-EFCX-73e brings the plant into

conformance with the analyzed design bases. Maintenance and operation

requirements are not modified in any manner. Adherence to the analyzed

design bases will not affect the margin of safety for the design bases

analysis.

Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in

a margin of safety.

In preparing this request the Technical Specification Bases were

reviewed for impact. No changes are necessary to address the EPN

changes or the replacement of two excess flow check valves with swing

check valves.

Based on this review, the Supply System has determined that the

three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Accordingly, the Supply

System has determined that this amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The NRC 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 30-

day notice period expires. 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, 11555 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

20555.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By June 13, 1994, 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 20555 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 particularly 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 supplemental 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, 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 20555, 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 Theodore R. Quay, Director, Project

Directorate IV-3: 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 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq., Winston &

Strawn, 1400 L Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, the licensee's

attorney.

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 5, 1994, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local

public document room located at the Richland Public Library, 955

Northgate Street, Richland, Washington 99352.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Mark Padovan,

Acting Project Manager Project Directorate IV-3 Division of Reactor

Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-11647 Filed 5-11-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M