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
33780 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices

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 title change for the Assistant Managing

Director, Operations [AMDO] to Chief

Executive Officer [CEO] is considered a

necessary administrative change due to the

restructuring of the organization and the

elimination of the AMDO position. The TS

responsibilities presently associated with the

AMDO position will be the responsibility of

the CEO position. This change maintains a

single corporate executive responsible for

overall plant nuclear safety per TS 6.2.1.c.

The deletion of the QA organizational

reporting requirement in TS 6.2.1.e and the

inclusion of the QA organization in TS

6.2.1.d does not diminish the capability of

the QA organization to maintain its

independent audit and oversight role. These

functions are assured through various

controls and requirements in the QA program

description.

The consolidation of the Technical

Services POC position with the Engineering

POC position does not impact the ability of

the POC to perform their required functions.

The consolidation of plant Engineering

functions under one organization provides

for an improved Engineering focus for plant

activities. The addition of Chemistry and

Planning/Scheduling/Outage functional areas

to the POC membership, in the original

amendment request, broadened and

strengthened the POC, thus ensuring that the

POC will continue to be comprised of

experienced personnel, with varied expertise,

who are involved in daily plant activities.

The proposed changes do not involve any

physical changes to plant systems, structures

or components (SSC) or the manner in which

the SSC are operated, maintained, modified,

tested, or inspected. The changes therefore

do not involve a significant increase in the

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?

Because the proposed changes are

organizational in nature and implementation

does not involve physical changes to the

plant SSC or the manner in which the SSC

are operated and maintained, the proposed

changes do not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident. The proposed

changes do not introduce any new modes of

operation or alter system setpoints which

could create a new or different kind of

accident. Therefore, the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated is not created.

3. Does the change involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety?

The senior management title change does

not impact the management responsibilities

or functions associated with ensuring plant

safety. Changes proposed in the POC

composition will allow the scope of available

expertise to be expanded without changing

the POC function or responsibilities.

Maintaining the current level of personnel

qualifications and experience ensures the

POC will continue to meet its TS review and

advisory responsibilities. The proposed

changes will not impact the basis for any

Technical Specification related to the

establishment of, or maintenance of, nuclear

safety margins. Therefore, operation of the

facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment does not involve a significant

reduction in a 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

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 126 / Friday, June 28, 1996 / Notices 33781

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 June 6, 1995, as

supplemented by letter dated April 22,

1996, 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. 96–16556 Filed 6–27–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–348 and 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

Inc.; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plants,

Units 1 and 2 Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations for Facility Operating

License Nos. NPF–2 and NPF–8, issued

to Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc. (the licensee), for

operation of the Joseph M. Farley

(Farley) Nuclear Plants, Units 1 and 2,

located in Houston County, Alabama.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action would exempt

the licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24, which requires a monitoring

system that will energize clearly audible

alarms if accidental criticality occurs in

each area in which special nuclear

material is handled, used, or stored. The

proposed action would also exempt the

licensee from the requirements of 10

CFR 70.24(a)(3) to maintain emergency

procedures for each area in which this

licensed special nuclear material is

handled, used, or stored to ensure that

all personnel withdraw to an area of

safety upon the sounding of the alarm

and to conduct drills and designate

responsible individuals for such

emergency procedures.

The proposed action is in accordance

with the licensee’s application for

exemption dated May 31, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Power reactor license applicants are

evaluated for the safe handling, use, and

storage of special nuclear materials. The

proposed exemption from criticality

accident requirements is based on the

original design for radiation monitoring

at Farley. Exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR 70.24(a)

‘‘Criticality Accident Requirements’’

were granted in the Special Nuclear

Material (SNM) licenses for each unit as

part of the 10 CFR Part 70 license.

However, with the issuance of the Part

50 license this exemption expired

because it was inadvertently omitted in

that license. Therefore, the exemption is

needed to clearly define the design of

the plant as evaluated and approved for

licensing.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The NRC staff has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that there is no significant

environmental impact if the exemption

is granted. Inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the Farley Technical

Specifications, the geometric spacing of

fuel assemblies in the new fuel storage

facility and spent fuel storage pool, and

administrative controls imposed on fuel

handling procedures.

Inadvertent or accidental criticality of

SNM while in use in the reactor vessel