Washington Public Power Supply System; 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; 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 the Washington Public Power Supply System (the

licensee) for operation of its Nuclear Project No. 2 located in Benton

County, Washington.

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS)

4.0.5.a. to delete the requirement to obtain prior written relief from

the Commission for inservice inspection (ISI) and inservice testing

(IST) of components conducted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a. This change

would provide relief from the ASME Code requirement in the interim

between the submittal of a relief request and the NRC's issuance of a

safety evaluation regarding the relief request. The change would allow

the plant to operate in accordance with a proposed relief request while

the NRC staff completed its review of the relief request.

The licensee has also proposed to modify TS 4.0.5.b. to add

definition for biennial or every-2-year inspection and testing

activities. The definition of biennial or every 2 years will be a least

once per 731 days.

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) Does the change involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

[Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.a:]

The proposed amendment allows continued plant operation in

situations where ISI/IST Code compliance may be impractical.

Continued operation is allowed only if the Code nonconformance has

been determined not to be an unreviewed safety question or require a

technical Specification change as defined by 10 CFR 50.59. Further,

to support continued operation a relief request must be submitted

for Commission approval in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a.

The Change being proposed is administrative in nature and does

not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the

physical design and/or operation of the plant, nor doe it affect

Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions.

Any relief from the approved ASME Section XI Code requirements,

under the circumstances contemplated by NUREG-1482, will require a

10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to ensure no Technical Specification changes

or unreviewed safety questions exist. Further, the required 10 CFR

50.59 review includes a determination as to ``if the probability of

occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of

equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety

analysis report may be increased.'' This evaluation will ensure that

actions are not taken that could involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

For the above reasons, operation of the facility in accordance

with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of previously evaluated

accidents.

[Regarding to change to TS 4.0.5.b:]

Clarification of existing requirements as put forth in ASME XI

for a biennial testing frequency as 731 days has no impact on the

operation of the plant and does not have a credible impact on the

possibility or consequences of a previously evaluated accident. The

change does not result in any hardware or operating procedure

changes. Hence, such a change cannot increase the probability of a

previously evaluated accident. Because it does not involve any

equipment modifications or operating mode changes, the consequences

of an accident occurring with this change is the same as the

consequences of an accident occurring without the change.

Incorporation of the change in the WNP-2 Technical

Specifications will not alter the probability of a previously

evaluated accident nor increase the consequences of an accident.

(2) Does the change create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

[Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.a:]

The proposed change is administrative in nature and will not

change the physical plant or the modes of operation defined in the

WWNP-2 License. The change does not involve the addition or

modification of equipment nor does it alter the design or operation

of plant systems. Any relief requests from the approved ASME Section

XI Code requirements, under the circumstances contemplated by NUREG-

1482, will require a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation to ensure no Technical

Specification changes or unreviewed safety questions exist before

implementation. The 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation will specifically

address whether or not the ``possibility for an accident or

malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the

safety analysis report may be created.''

Therefore, with the control provided by the 10 CFR 50.59 review

process and the administrative nature of the change, operation of

the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not

create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated.

[Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.b:]

Because the proposed change introduces no new mode of plant

operation nor does it require physical modification of the plant,

the possibility of a new or different kind of accident that those

previously evaluated is not created by this change.

(3) Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin

of safety?

[Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.a:]

The margin of safety established by the 4.0.5.a ISI/IST program

surveillance requirements is in ensuring that the systems are

operable and will perform adequately to support the assumptions of

the accident analysis. The change being proposed is admistrative in

nature and does not alter the basis for assurance that safety-

related activities are performed correctly. The change does not

alter the basis for any Technical Specification that is related to

the establishment of or maintenance of a safety margin. Any relief

request from the approved ASME Section XI Code requirements, under

the circumstances contemplated by NUREG-1482, will require a 10 CFR

50.59 evaluation to ensure that no Technical Specification changes

or unreviewed safety questions exist as a result of the relief

request. Further, the 10 CFR 50.59 review includes a determination

as to ``if the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any

technical specification is reduced.'' This evaluation will ensure

that actions are not taken that could involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

For these reasons, operation of the facility in accordance with

the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

[Regarding the change to TS 4.0.5.b:]

Clarification of the ASME XI testing frequency of ``Biennially

or every two years * * * At least once per 731 days'' has no impact

on the operation of the plant and can not significantly impact the

margin of safety created by the affected Technical Specifications.

The change clarifies and improves the accuracy and understanding of

the Technical Specifications. Because it does not have a technical

or operational impact, the margin of safety created by the affected

specification is not significantly affected by this change.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on

this review, it appears that the three standards of CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determination 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 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, 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 December 14, 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, 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; 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 specific 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 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 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 hazard 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, by the above

date. Where petitions are filed during the last 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: 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 M.H. Philips, Jr.,

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 August 8, 1994, 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 9th day of November 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

James W. Clifford,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor

Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations.

[FR Doc. 94-28123 Filed 11-10-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M