Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39913

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–19802 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

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.

This technical specification (TS)

change authorizes the licensee to

conduct TS Surveillance 3.8.4.8

(performance test) in lieu of TS

Surveillance 3.8.4.7 (service test) for the

WNP–2 Division 2 Class 1E 125 VDC

battery on a one-time basis. The change

to the TS is authorized until the licensee

can perform the sevice test during the

next scheduled refueling outage or

during the next unplanned outage of

sufficient duration. This amendment

has been requested in accordance with

the notice of enforcement discretion

granted to the licensee on July 17, 1998.

This amendment needs to be

processed on an exigent basis to

promptly bring the plant into literal

compliance with the technical

specifications due to an inadvertent

missed surveillance. Without this

amendment the licensee would be

required to shut down the plant and

create an unnecessary plant transient.

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.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine 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 safety function of the Battery E–B1–2

is to provide 125 VDC power to the Division

2 safety-related loads including: RCIC

Turbine Exhaust Valve, CAC Isolation

Valves, Diesel (DG–2) Engine Backup Lube

and Fuel Oil Pumps, Critical Switchgear

control power, Critical Instrument Power

Supply Inverter, NSSS Instrument and

Control Board power, and control power to

the Remote Shutdown Panel. This establishes

the Division 2, 125 VDC Power system as an

accident mitigation system, and is not an

individual precursor of an evaluated

accident. Battery E–B1–2 has no role in the

initiation of design basis accidents (DBAs) or

transients identified in the FSAR.

The proposed change entails a one time

relief from verbatim compliance with SR

3.8.4.7 by permitting the performance test in

SR 3.8.4.8 to suffice for performance of the

SR 3.8.4.7 service test. Improved Technical

Specifications (ITS) SR 3.8.4.7 presently

allows the ‘‘modified’’ performance test in SR

3.8.4.8 to be performed in lieu of the service

test in SR 3.8.4.7. The difference between the

modified performance test short duration

load of 400 amperes for six seconds and the

performance test load of 350 amperes is small

when compared to the 922 ampere oneminute rating of the battery. Testing at the

levels defined in either situation provides a

satisfactory battery performance

demonstration. Additionally, documented

test results since the date of manufacture

(1994) of Battery E–B1–2 substantiate the

battery’s capability to perform its intended

safety functions. The performance test

completed in April of 1997 demonstrated a

battery capacity of 104.7% which is above

the battery replacement criteria of 80%

capacity. The performance test performed

when the battery was new as part of

acceptance testing in May of 1994

documented a capacity of 104.17%.

Comparing the 1994 and 1997 performance

test results indicates that the battery has not

degraded during the 4 years since it was

manufactured and installed. Based on the

substantial battery capacity demonstrated by

these performance tests and the short

duration peak load required by the service

test (400 amps) as compared to the oneminute rating of the battery (922 amps), the

battery is fully capable of meeting the

requirements of the modified performance

test and the service test.

Regular battery surveillances are routinely

performed which include specific gravity and

battery terminal voltage measurements. As a

compensatory measure, in addition to the

visual corrosion inspection, the Supply

System will measure Battery E–B1–2

connection resistance on a 92 day interval

and verify that the intercell connector

resistance is ≤ 24.4 E–6 ohms. These

surveillance measures will ensure that

Battery E–B1–2 remains operable.

The probability of an evaluated accident is

derived from the probabilities of the

individual precursors to that accident. The

consequences of an evaluated accident are

determined by the operability of plant

systems designed to mitigate those

consequences. Since Battery E–B1–2 is

operable and will remain in service, this

action will not change the availability of any

safety related equipment and no individual

precursors of an accident are affected.

Therefore, this change does not increase the

probability of an accident previously

evaluated. In addition, since the functions

and capabilities of systems designed to

mitigate the consequences of an accident

have not changed, the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated are not

expected to increase. Therefore, there is no

significant increase in the probability or

consequence 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 service test requires a discharge rate of

400 amps for the first six seconds and drops

to less than 250 amps for a duration of two

hours. The performance test requires a

constant 350 amps throughout the test.

Therefore, a difference of 50 amps for the

first six seconds is not enveloped by the

performance test. The service test

requirement of 400 amps is small compared

to the manufacturer’s one-minute discharge

rating of the battery (922 amps). The 50

amperes for six seconds difference in the

testing profiles of the SR 3.8.4.7 service test

and the SR 3.8.4.8 performance test was

confirmed by the manufacturer as

insignificant relative to demonstration of the

battery capacity and its short duration

discharge rate.

Creation of the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident would require the

creation of one or more new precursors of

that accident. New accident precursors may

be created by modifications to the plant

configuration. No modifications to plant

configuration will result from this proposed

one time surveillance test change.

Documented test results demonstrate that

Battery E–B1–2 is capable of performing its

intended safety function. Since Battery E–

B1–2 has not been modified and will remain

in operation during Operational Modes 1, 2,

and 3 as required by the Technical

Specifications, no new failure modes of the

125 VDC Distribution System are introduced.

Therefore, this change 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 signficant reduction in a margin of safety.

The basis for the margin of safety for the

Division 2, 125 VDC battery is the two hour

operating time defined in the DC System
39914 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices

design basis. Battery E–B1–2 is properly

sized using the methodology prescribed in

IEEE Standard 485–1983 and includes the

emergency loads anticipated during a Loss of

Coolant Accident (LOCA) with a coincident

Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP), for two hours.

Additionally, the battery is relatively new

having been manufactured and installed in

1994 and is in the prime of its service life.

The battery service test performed in April of

1995 documented 114.2 volts @ 459 amps

(in-rush) and 111.0 volts @ 279.0 amps (120

mins.). This service test encompassed the

safety-related two hour duty cycle and

demonstrated that the battery is able to

supply and maintain the operable status of

all emergency loads for their respective duty

times.

The performance test uses the

manufacturer’s two hour discharge rate and

is used to establish baseline capacity for

trending battery degradation. The modified

performance draws approximately 700.1

ampere-hours and the performance test

draws 700 ampere-hours. Both of these tests

are more severe than the service test which,

when corrected for temperature, draws

approximately 413 amp-hours. Since the

performance test done in April 1997

demonstrated a capacity of 104.7% (of 700 Ah) there is no decrease in the margin of safety

when compared to the total amp-hour

demands of the LOCA with LOOP duty cycle,

(i.e., the service test).

Battery E–B1–2 will not be removed from

service during plant operation. Therefore,

there is no change in availability of the

Division 2 125 VDC battery, charger, or

distribution system, and as such, there is no

change in the base assumptions of our PRA

models. Thus there is no impact on the

WNP–2 PSA. Therefore, this change 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 14 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 14-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

14-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. 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 August 24, 1998, 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; 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 a 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 the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 / Notices 39915

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, 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, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 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 July 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 20th day

of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

L. Raynard Wharton,

Acting Project Manager Project Directorate

IV–2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–19804 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY

CORPORATION

Proposed Submission of Information

Collection for OMB Review; Comment

Request; Customer Satisfaction

Survey

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of intention to request

OMB approval.

SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation intends to request that the

Office of Management and Budget

approve a collection of information

under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The purpose of this information

collection, which will be conducted

through customer satisfaction surveys,

is to help the agency assess the

efficiency and effectiveness with which

it serves participants in pension plans it

becomes trustee of, and to design

actions to address identified problems.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of General Counsel, Pension

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Suite

340, 1200 K St. NW., Washington, DC

20005–4026, or delivered to that address

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. on business

days. Written comments will be

available for public inspection at the

PBGC’s Communications and Public

Affairs Department, Suite 240 at the

same address, between 9 a.m. and 4

p.m. on business days. A copy of the

proposed collection may be obtained

without charge by writing to the PBGC

at the above address or calling 202–326–

4040. (For TTY and TDD users, call the

Federal Relay service toll-free at 1–800–

877–8339 and ask to be connected to

202–326–4040.) The notice can be

accessed on the PBGC’s home page at

http://www.pbgc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marc Jordan, Attorney, Office of the

General Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005–

4026, 202–326–4024. (For TTY and

TDD, call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and request

connect to 202–326–4024).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

The PBGC intends to request OMB

approval of a collection of information

consisting of customer satisfaction

surveys. The collection is in furtherance

of the goals described in Executive

Order 12862, Setting Customer Service

Standards, which states that, in order to

carry out the principles of the National

Performance Review, the Federal

Government must be customer-driven.

The Executive Order directs all

executive departments and agencies that

provide significant services directly to

the public to provide those services in

a manner that seeks to meet the

customer service standards established

in the Executive Order.

The customer satisfaction survey

information collection will be

accomplished by mailing questionnaires

to a random sample of participants and

beneficiaries who have had recent

contact with the PBGC.

This voluntary collection of

information will put a slight burden on

a very small percentage of the public.

The PBGC will collect information

annually from 1,280 participants and

beneficiaries in pension plans trusteed

by the PBGC. The PBGC estimates that

the total annual burden will be 106.66

hours.

The PBGC solicits comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Issued at Washington, DC, this 21st day of

July, 1998.

Stuart Sirkin,

Director, Corporate Policy and Research

Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation.

[FR Doc. 98–19879 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7708–01–P

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to

the provisions of the Government in the

Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94–409, that the

Securities and Exchange Commission

will hold the following meetings during

the week of July 27, 1998.