[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-28910]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 23, 1994]


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

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

 

Texas Utilities Electric Company; Notice of 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU 
Electric, the licensee) for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 located in Somervell County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would modify the Comanche Peak Steam 
Electric Station (CPSES) Technical Specification Table 4.8-1 ``Diesel 
Generator Test Schedule,'' by excluding two valid failures for the Unit 
2 Train B emergency diesel generator (EDG) from contributing towards an 
accelerated test schedule.
    The CPSES Unit 2 design employs EDGs to provide onsite AC power in 
the event that offsite AC power is not available. The EDGs are required 
to be tested on a periodic basis (normally monthly) to provide an 
ongoing demonstration of performance and reliability. In accordance 
with technical specifications, EDG failures are reported to the NRC in 
special reports, and when certain values for the number of failures per 
number of valid tests (as defined by Regulatory Position C.2.e of 
Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1) are exceeded, the frequency of 
testing is accelerated to weekly. Due to recent failures, technical 
specifications require weekly testing until the third week of December 
1994 (assuming no additional failures are encountered). In its letter 
of November 11, 1994, TU Electric requested that the amendment be 
approved on an expedited basis to preclude unnecessary testing of the 
Unit 2 Train B EDG because such testing could result in an overall 
degradation of the EDG.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 proposed change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    There are no initiating events in accidents previously evaluated 
that involve testing of EDGs [emergency diesel generators]. Therefore, 
deletion of accelerated testing of EDGs does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    A reduction in the number of test starts decreases EDG component 
stress and wear and decreases unavailability time for maintenance and 
pre and post run checks. The resulting change in EDG reliability and 
availability is an improvement toward ensuring the EDGs are capable of 
fulfilling their functional requirement to provide electric power for 
safe shutdown of the plant during loss of offsite power. The failure 
mode that caused the failures being excluded have been eliminated with 
the result that their impact on future reliability has likewise been 
eliminated. Therefore, deletion of accelerated testing of EDGs does not 
involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The end result of this technical specification change is to prevent 
unnecessary testing. As such, this action does not impact the 
probability of an accident. It only impacts the consequences of an 
accident positively by eliminating unnecessary testing which could 
reduce the reliability of the Diesel Generator; and therefore this 
Technical Specification change does not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of an accident.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluate?
    The frequency at which EDG testing occurs does not affect the 
potential failure modes of the EDGs, which have already been assessed 
in the CPSES design. Therefore, a reduction in accelerated testing of 
EDGs does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    The margin of safety impact associated with accelerated testing 
relates to EDG reliability and availability. A reduction in the number 
of test starts decreases EDG component stress and wear and decreases 
unavailability time for maintenance and pre and post run checks. The 
resulting change in EDG reliability and availability is an improvement 
toward ensuring the EDGs are capable of fulfilling their functional 
requirement to provide electric power for safe shutdown of the plant 
during loss of offsite power. Therefore, a reduction in the accelerated 
testing of EDGs does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    Avoiding unnecessary testing has no impact on failure points and 
will reduce the likelihood of Diesel Generator failure when the engine 
is needed to perform a safety function. As a result, the requested 
technical specification change does not significantly reduce the margin 
of safety. This technical specification change does not constitute a 
significant hazards consideration.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.29(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 15 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 15-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 15-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. 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By December 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, 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 the 
Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on 
the request and/or petition; and 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 particularly 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 a 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 participation 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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, 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 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, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20036, 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 November 11, 1994, 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 University of Texas at Arlington 
Library, Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, 
Arlington, Texas 76019.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-I, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-28910 Filed 11-22-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M