# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-28123

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** November 14, 1994

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-28123. Public record. Not legal advice.