[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 19 (Friday, January 28, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page ]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1954]


[Federal Register: January 28, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323]


Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-80 and DPR-82 issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant 
located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
    The proposed amendments would revise the combined Technical 
Specifications (TS) 3/4.32, ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation 
System Instrumentation,'' and TS 3/4.6.2.3. ``Containment Cooling 
System.'' TS 3/4.3.2, Table 3.3-3, ``Engineered Safety Features 
Actuation System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements,'' would be 
revised to clarify acceptable containment fan cooling unit (CFCU) 
configurations that satisfy the safety analysis requirements and to 
clarify the minimum required component cooling water flow supplied to 
the CFCU cooling coils. The specific TS changes proposed are as 
follows:
    (1) TS 3.3.2, Table 3.3-3 and Table 4.3-2, Functional Units 2.c. 
and 3.b.3), would be revised to expand the mode applicability to Mode 
4.
    (2) TS 3.6.2.3 would be revised to require that at least four 
containment fan cooling units (CFCUs), or three CFCUs, each supplied by 
a separate vital bus, be operable.
    (3) TS 3.6.2.3, action statement a., would be revised to clarify 
the equipment required to be operable when in the action statement.
    (4) TS 3.6.2.3, action statement b., would be deleted.
    (5) TS 3.6.2.3, action statement c., would be renumbered to action 
statement b. and revised to clarify the equipment required to be 
operable when in the action statement.
    (6) TS 4.6.2.3.a.2) would be revised to clarify the minimum 
component cooling water (CCW) flow to the CFCUs as 1650 gpm during 
normal operation which will assure that the required accident flow is 
satisfied.
    (7) A footnote would be added to the surveillance requirement of TS 
4.6.2.3.a.2) allowing all CFCUs to have flow CCW flow for ASME Section 
XI testing and Mode 4 operation with the residual heat removal (RHR) 
heat exchangers in service for decay heat removal.
    (8) TS 4.6.2.3.a.3) would be revised to remove cycle specific 
information that is no longer applicable.
    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?
    Neither the [component cooling water] CCW system nor the 
containment pressure high-high signal initiate any accident, and 
therefore, do not affect the probability of an accident occurring.
    Addition of Mode 4 to the applicability of the containment high-
high pressure signal provides assurance that the containment spray 
system will automatically actuate and the CCW nonvital header will 
automatically isolate is response to the high containment pressure.
    Deletion of action statement b. of TS 3.6.2.3 is conservative since 
it assures that adequate containment heat removal is available and 
assures that the assumptions of the bounding Mode 1 containment [design 
basis accident] DBA are satisfied.
    Revising the CCW flow rates to the CFCUs clarifies the expected CCW 
flow rates during normal operation. Operation within the flow 
requirements assures that adequate flow will be available to the CFCUs 
to satisfy the assumptions in the containment DBA in [final safety 
analysis report] FSAR Section 6.2B.3.
    PG&E analysis has determined that with three CFCUs available for 
containment heat removal , adequate CCW flow will be available with 
both [residual heat removal] RHR heat exchangers in service to provide 
assurance that the maximum design pressure of containment is not 
exceeded, assuming a single failure does not occur.
    The revisions to clarify CFCU configurations that satisfy the 
[limiting condition for operation] LCO and action statements and the 
removal of cycle specific information from the containment cooling TS 
are administrative changes that do not affect the operating methodology 
of Diablo Canyon.
    Therefore, the proposed changes 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 accident previously evaluated?
    The revision to the minimum CCW flow requirement to the CFCU 
cooling coils updates a requirement currently in the TS. The new flow 
requirement assures that the maximum containment design pressure will 
not be exceeded during a DBA and assures that the CCW system is not 
overheated. The changes do not result in any physical modification to 
any plant system.
    The revisions to clarify CFCU configurations that satisfy the LCO 
and action statements and the removal of cycle specific information 
from the containment cooling TS are administrative changes that do not 
affect the operating methodology of Diablo Canyon.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do 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?
    Revising the CCW flow rates to the CFCUs clarifies the expected CCW 
flow rates during normal operation that satisfy the assumptions in the 
containment design basis accident described in FSAR Update Section 
6.2B.3. The revision is an administrative change that clarifies the 
intent of the TS.
    PG&E analysis has determined that with three CFCUs available for 
containment heat removal, adequate CCW flow will be available with both 
RHR heat exchangers in service to provide assurance that the maximum 
design pressure of containment is not exceeded, assuming a single 
failure does not occur.
    The revisions to clarify CFCU configurations that satisfy the LCO 
and action statements and the removal of cycle specific information 
from the containment cooling TS are administrative changes that do not 
affect the operating methodology of Diablo Canyon.
    Therefore the proposed change 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 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 P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, 
Bethesda, 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By February 28, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at California Polytechnic State 
University, Robert F. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps 
Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407. 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 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 20555, 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 Theodore R. Quay, Director, Project 
Directorate V: 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 Christopher J. Warner, Esq., Pacific Gas 
and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120, 
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 January 10, 1994, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the 
local public document room located at California Polytechnic State 
University, Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps 
Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Sheri R. Peterson,
Project Manager, Project Directorate V, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV/V, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-1954 Filed 1-27-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M