Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33777

completion date for a site-reclamation

milestone. The new date proposed by

Petrotomics would extend completion

of placement of final radon barrier on a

9-acres portion of the tailings pile by

four years, and two months.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mohammad W. Haque, Uranium

Recovery Branch, Division of Waste

Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Telephone (301) 415–6640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

portion of LC 50 with the proposed

change would read as follows:

A. (3) Placement of final barrier

designed and constructed to limit radon

emissions to an average flux of no more

than 20 pCi/m2/s above background for:

a. Area of tailings pile not covered by

evaporation ponds, except a 9-acres area

in the north adjacent to the Stage I

Evaporation Pond—October 31, 1997;

and

b. 9-acres area in the north adjacent to

the Stage I Evaporation Pond—

December 31, 2001.

Petrotomics’ application to amend LC

50 of Source Material License SUA–551,

which describes the proposed change to

the license condition and the reasons for

the request is being made available for

public inspection at the NRC’s Public

Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.

The NRC hereby provides notice of an

opportunity for a hearing on the license

amendment under the provisions of 10

CFR Part 2, Subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings.’’ Pursuant to § 2.1205(a),

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding may file a

request for a hearing. In accordance

with § 2.1205(c), a request for hearing

must be filed within 30 days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The request for a hearing must

be filed with the Office of the Secretary,

either:

(1) By delivery to the Docketing and

Service Branch of the Office of the

Secretary at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD

20852; or

(2) By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001, Attention: Docketing and Service

Branch.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(e),

each request for a hearing must also be

served, by delivering it personally or by

mail, to:

(1) The applicant, Petrotomics

Company, P.O., Box 8509, Shirley

Basin, Wyoming 82615, Attention: Ron

Juday; and

(2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the

Executive Director for Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852 or by mail

addressed to the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR Part

2 of the NRC’s regulations, a request for

a hearing filed by a person other than

an applicant must describe in detail:

(1) The interest of the requestor in the

proceeding;

(2) How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including the reasons why the requestor

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(g);

(3) The requestor’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

(4) The circumstances establishing

that the request for a hearing is timely

in accordance with § 2.1205(c).

The request must also set forth the

specific aspect or aspects of the subject

matter of the proceeding as to which

petitioner wishes a hearing.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21th day

of June 1996.

Joseph J. Holonich,

Chief, Uranium Recovery Branch, Division

of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 96–16557 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[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
33778 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

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
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 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

[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

reflect licensee organizational title

changes in Section 6.0 of the Technical

Specifications (TS), delete TS 6.2.1.e

and revise TS 6.2.1.d to incorporate the

quality assurance function per the line

item improvement identified in Generic

Letter 88–06 dated March 22, 1988,

modify TS 6.5.1.2 to specify the

composition of the Plant Operations

Committee (POC) based on plant

functional areas rather than

organizational titles, remove the Plant

General Manager as Chairman of the

POC, and require the Plant General

Manager to appoint, in writing, the POC

Chairman, Vice-Chairman, members and

alternates. The April 22, 1996,

application differs from the licensee’s

previous application dated June 6, 1995,

which was noticed in the Federal

Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 37102),

in that the previous application did not

propose changes to TS 6.2.1.d and e,

and additional organizational changes

are included in the more recent

proposed TS changes.

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