[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 153-155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-32304]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-298]


Nebraska Public Power District; 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. 
DPR-46, issued to the Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee) for 
operation of the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) located in Nemaha County, 
Nebraska.
    The proposed amendment is a Line Item Technical Specifications 
Improvement and would revise the CNS Technical Specifications, 
definition 1.0.J. concerning entering an operational condition 
consistent with the wording proposed in NRC Generic Letter 87-09, 
``Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of the Standard Technical Specifications on the 
Applicability of Limiting Conditions for Operation and Surveillance 
Requirements,'' dated June 4, 1987.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended [[Page 154]] (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 proposed license amendment involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated?

Evaluation

    The proposed change does not affect plant operation or the 
design. The change provides specific applicability requirements to 
the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCO). The proposed change 
incorporates only those applicability requirements and exceptions 
denoted by Generic Letter 87-09, concerning entering an operational 
condition. Invoking the proposed change in LCO definition does not 
impact nor alter any LCO Action Requirements in the Technical 
Specifications. Those LCO Action Statements which do not require 
shutdown provide acceptable compensatory safety measures for the 
affected function, and therefore, operational conditions need not be 
restricted further. Since conformance to these LCO Action 
Requirements provide an acceptable level of safety for continued 
operation of the facility, entry into an operational condition or 
other specified conditions would not increase the probability or 
consequences of an accident as long as the remedial Action 
Requirements are met.
    Furthermore, the proposed change does not affect any accident or 
safety analysis event initiator as analyzed in the Updated Safety 
Analysis Report (USAR), nor involve any modification to equipment. 
The proposed change is administrative in nature and primarily serves 
to provide plant personnel with clear guidance regarding compliance 
with LCOs and Action Requirements under all operating conditions. 
Therefore, no significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed would occur.
    2. Does the proposed License Amendment create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?

Evaluation

    The proposed change does not affect any equipment design or 
configuration, nor does the change introduce a new mode of operation 
therefore, no new or different type of failures are created. The 
proposed change serves to strengthen the existing Cooper Nuclear 
Station (CNS) Technical Specifications (TS) requirements by 
eliminating some areas of confusion and interpretation, and 
providing a clear statement of the specification's (1.0.J) intent. 
The proposed change will ensure that appropriate administrative 
requirements are invoked prior to any change in an operational 
condition.
    The proposed change does not affect the testing methodology for 
any systems. There will be no change in the types or increase in the 
amount of effluents released offsite. Since there are no changes to 
the function, operation, or surveillance test methodology of any 
system, equipment, or component, the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident is not created.
    3. Does the proposed change create a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?

Evaluation

    The proposed change does not reduce the margin of safety because 
it has no impact on any safety analysis assumption. The proposed 
change clarifies the LCO definition concerning entry into an 
operational condition. The proposed change ensures that the 
appropriate administrative requirements are met prior to any change 
in an operational condition. The proposed change serves to 
strengthen the philosophy of compliance with the Technical 
Specifications. The change is administrative in nature and provides 
explanatory information which does not impact any safety analysis. 
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 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 February 2, 1995, 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 Auburn Public Library, 118 15th Street, 
Auburn, Nebraska 68305. 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 [[Page 155]] 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, 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 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 William D. Beckner: 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 Mr. G.D. 
Watson, Nebraska Public Power District, Post Office Box 499, Columbus, 
Nebraska 68602-0499, 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 December 22, 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 Auburn Public Library, 118 15th 
Street, Auburn, Nebraska 68305.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 1994.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Beckner,
Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects-III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-32304 Filed 12-30-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M