[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33777-33779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16555]


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

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 (WPPSS, also the 
licensee) for operation of the WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 located on 
Hanford Reservation in Benton County, Washington.
    The proposed amendment would add a reactor water cleanup (RWCU) 
system high blowdown containment isolation trip function and associated 
Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements to 
Technical Specification (TS) Tables 3.3.2-1, 3.3.2-2, and 4.3.2.1-1.
    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?
    The proposed amendment incorporates design features being 
implemented to reduce the detection and isolation time for a 
postulated High Energy Line Break (HELB) at the piping connection to 
the Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) system blowdown flow control valve. 
These design features significantly improve the capability to detect 
and mitigate the effects of the line break and are necessary to 
resolve Reactor Building environmental concerns. Since the design 
features are for accident detection and mitigation, they are not 
considered an accident initiator in the analyses and will not 
increase the probability of the accident. Moreover, the 
instrumentation design ensures that no single failure would preclude 
isolation of the HELB.
    The proposed amendment does not remove or modify any existing 
Technical Specification requirements, but imposes additional 
requirements related to the new ``Blowdown Flow--High'' trip 
function consistent with existing Limiting Condition for Operation 
(LCO) and surveillance requirements, conservative analyses, and 
instrumentation setpoint methodologies. These requirements will 
maintain the Reactor Building environment consistent with the 
current analyses for the postulated RWCU HELB and provide assurance 
that the radiological effects of the line break are bounded by the 
accident analysis for the design basis Main Steam line break (MSLB) 
outside containment. The calculated offsite doses for the MSLB are 
less than 10% of the 10 CFR 100 guideline values and meet the 
acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) 15.6.4.
    On the basis of the information presented above, it is concluded 
that the change does not involve a significant increase in the

[[Page 33778]]

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated?
    This proposed amendment incorporates design features to resolve 
Reactor Building environmental concerns that resulted from a 
postulated RWCU HELB that had previously not been fully analyzed. 
The design features will significantly improve the capability to 
detect and mitigate the effects of the HELB. The instrumentation 
design meets the single failure criterion, and a flow switch failure 
results in fulfillment of the accident safety function of RWCU 
system isolation. The instrumentation being installed does not 
represent a new or different kind than currently used in similar 
safety-related applications in the plant. Furthermore, the flow 
instrumentation, piping/tubing, and associated supports have been 
evaluated to withstand the effects of the design basis earthquake 
(DBE) and the postulated HELB. An environmental qualification 
evaluation determined that the equipment required to mitigate the 
HELB or assure safe shutdown can withstand the adverse effects of 
the HELB.
    The proposed amendment does not remove or modify any existing 
Technical Specification requirements or change the method of plant 
operation, but imposes additional requirements related to the new 
``Blowdown Flow--High'' trip function consistent with existing LCO 
and surveillance requirements, conservative analyses, and 
instrumentation setpoint methodologies. These requirements will 
maintain the Reactor Building environment consistent with the 
assumptions used in current analyses for the postulated RWCU HELB 
and provide assurance that the radiological effects of the line 
break are bounded by the accident analysis of the design basis MSLB 
outside containment.
    On the basis of the information presented above, it is concluded 
that the change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    This proposed amendment incorporates design features being 
implemented to reduce the detection and isolation time for a 
postulated RWCU HELB. The design change complies with applicable 
codes and standards to meet the safety-related function objective. 
The instrumentation design meets the single failure criterion, and 
the flow instrumentation, piping/tubing, and associated supports 
have been evaluated to withstand the effects of a DBE, and the 
postulated HELB. Furthermore, an environmental qualification 
evaluation determined that the equipment required to mitigate the 
HELB or assure safe shutdown can withstand the adverse effects of 
the HELB.
    The proposed amendment does not remove or modify any existing 
Technical Specification requirements, but imposes additional 
requirements related to the new ``Blowdown Flow--High'' trip 
function consistent with existing LCO and surveillance requirements, 
conservative analyses, and instrument setpoint methodologies. These 
requirements will maintain the Reactor Building environment 
consistent with the new analyses for the postulated RWCU HELB and 
provide assurance that the radiological effects of the line break 
are bounded by the accident analysis for the design basis MSLB 
outside containment. The calculated offsite doses for the MSLB are 
less than 10% of the 10 CFR 100 guideline values and meet the 
acceptance criteria of Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) 15.6.4.
    On the basis of the information presented above, it is concluded 
that the 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 Chief, Rules 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications 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 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 July 29, 1996 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 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

[[Page 33779]]

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 20555-0001, 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 H. Bateman, Director, Project 
Directorate IV-2: 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 20555-0001, and to M. H. Phillips Jr., Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20005-3512, 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 April 25, 1995, 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 21st day of June 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-16555 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P