[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24207]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]

 

Texas Utilities Electric Co.; 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-87 and NPF-89, for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), 
Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas, operated by Texas 
Utilities Electric Company (the licensee).
    The proposed amendment would change the technical specifications to 
review the 18-month surveillance requirements for certain emergency 
core cooling system, containment system, and plant systems to eliminate 
the restriction that these surveillances be performed during shutdown 
or during the refueling mode or cold shutdown.
    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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    These proposed technical specification changes delete the 
restrictions that only tests which are performed ``during shutdown'' 
or ``during REFUELING MODE or COLD SHUTDOWN'' be used to comply with 
certain surveillance requirements. The tests of concern are equally 
valid whether they are performed during shutdown or if they are 
performed entirely or in part at power. ``Testing at power'' was 
never prohibited by the technical specifications although, for these 
surveillances, ``testing while shutdown'' was required. The testing 
which is performed at power is reviewed to ensure that the proper 
prerequisites are established, including the proper unit mode of 
operation and the proper circuit blocks. Significant portions of the 
testing needed to comply with these surveillance requirements, and 
in some cases the entire test, are already performed while at power 
as part of the test procedures which are used to comply with other 
surveillance requirements such as the Slave Relay Testing. In 
general, removing the ``during shutdown'' and ``during REFUELING 
MODE or COLD SHUTDOWN'' restrictions from these surveillance 
requirements will eliminate the need to reperform, while shutdown, 
those portions of the testing which are already routinely performed 
at power. Deleting such ``retest'' requirements does not reduce 
safety, cannot increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated, and is more likely to reduce the 
probability of a transient by eliminating duplicative testing.
    In the future, it is possible that TU Electric may choose to 
perform additional portions of these tests at power. Since these 
portions are not being performed at power now, the net effect is not 
the deletion of a retest but a change in the required conditions for 
that portion of the test. Such a change would require a change in 
the test procedure and would only be allowed if technically and 
operationally acceptable and if the change did not constitute an 
unreviewed safety question per 10 CFR 50.59. These controls are 
adequate to ensure that any future changes in the test procedures as 
a result of these proposed technical specification changes will not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated 
accident.
    The elimination of the requirement to ``retest'' circuits or 
equipment which are already tested at power cannot create any 
failure modes which could result in a new or different kind of 
accident. The controls which presently exist on revisions to 
procedures and on testing will ensure that any revisions to test 
procedures which allow testing which is now performed while shutdown 
to be performed while operating, are technically and operationally 
acceptable and will not result in an unreviewed safety question and 
as such will not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    The ``during shutdown'' or ``during the REFUELING MODE or COLD 
SHUTDOWN'' restriction on these surveillance requirements was 
intended to provide a margin of safety by avoiding unnecessary unit 
transients and by avoiding placing the unit in an unanalyzed 
condition. This intention seems reasonable based on the knowledge 
that portions of the testing should not be performed at power and 
that doing the entire surveillance test while shutdown should not 
have an adverse impact. The proposed changes do not affect system 
performance or acceptance limits. Because a large portion of the 
testing, and in some cases the entire test, would be performed at 
power as a result of other requirements or expectations, the 
proposed technical specification changes eliminate duplicative 
testing and, as such, will not reduce the margin of safety.
    The impact of revising existing test procedures, as a result of 
this technical specification change, to allow additional testing to 
be performed at power, would be properly addressed in the reviews 
performed as part of the procedure changes, including the required 
10 CFR 50.59 review, and when considered along with the reduction in 
shutdown risk that could result from such changes, it is concluded 
that such procedure changes will 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 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By October 31, 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 the University of Texas at Arlington 
Library, Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, 
Arlington, Texas 76019. 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 requested 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 William D. Beckner, Director, Project 
Directorate IV-1: 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 George L. Edgar, Esq., Newman and 
Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20336, 
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 September 19, 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 the University of Texas at 
Arlington Library, Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 
19497, Arlington, Texas 76019.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas A. Bergman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-24207 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M