[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 47 (Friday, March 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9502-9504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-5498]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-498]

Houston Lighting and Power Company; City Public Service Board of 
San Antonio Central Power and Light Company; City of Austin, Texas; 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment 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 No. 
NPF-76, issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company, et al., (the 
licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project, Unit 1, located in 
Matagorda County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would include the addition of Technical 
Specification (TS) 3.10.8 which would allow a one-time only extension 
of the standby diesel generator (SDG) allowed outage time for a 
cumulative 21 days on ``A'' train SDG. In addition, it would also allow 
a one-time only extension of the allowed outage time on ``A'' train 
essential cooling water loop for a cumulative 7 days. This one-time 
only change would become effective on April 10, 1996, and expire on May 
15, 1996.
    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 change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The Standby Diesel Generators are not accident initiators, 
therefore the increase in Allowed Outage Times for this system does 
not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated. 
The three train design of the South Texas Project ensures that even 
during the seven days the Essential Cooling Water loop is inoperable 
there are still two complete trains available to mitigate the 
consequences of any accident. If the Essential Cooling Water loop is 
not inoperable during the 21 days the Standby Diesel Generator is 
inoperable, the Standby Diesel Generator's Engineered Safety 
Features bus and equipment in the train will be operable. This 
ensures that all three redundant safety trains of the South Texas 
Project design are operable. In addition the Emergency Transformer 
will be available to supply the Engineered Safety Features bus 
normally supplied by the inoperable Standby Diesel Generator. These 
actions will ensure that the changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the consequences of previously evaluated accidents.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes affect only the magnitude of the Standby 
Diesel Generator and Essential Cooling Water Allowed Outage Times 
once per fuel cycle as identified by the marked-up Technical 
Specification. As indicated above, the proposed change does not 
involve the alteration of any equipment nor does it allow modes of 
operation beyond those currently allowed. Therefore, implementation 
of these proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed changes result in no significant increase in core 
damage or large early release frequencies.
    Three sets of PSA [probabilistic safety assessment] results have 
been presented to the NRC for the South Texas Project. One submitted 
in 1989 from the initial Level 1 PSA of internal and external events 
with a mean annual average CDF [core damage frequency] estimate of 
1.7 x 10(-4), a second one submitted in 1992 to meet the IPE 
requirements from the Level 2 PSA/IPE with a CDF estimate of 
4.4 x 10(-5), and an update of the PSA that was reported in the 
August 1993 Technical Specifications submittal with a variety of CDF 
estimates for different assumptions regarding the rolling 
maintenance profile and different combinations of modified Technical 
Specifications. The South Texas Project PSA was updated in March of 
1995 to include the NRC approved Risk-Based Technical 
Specifications, Plant Specific Data and incorporate the Emergency 
Transformer into the model. This update resulted in a CDF estimate 
of 2.07 x 10(-5). When the requested changes are modeled along with 
the compensatory actions, the resulting CDF estimate is 
2.30 x 10(-5). While this is slightly higher (approx. 11%) than the 
updated results, it is still significantly lower (approx. 46%) than 
the previous Risk-Based Evaluation of Technical Specification 
submitted in 1993. Therefore, it is concluded that there is no 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based on the above evaluation, Houston Lighting & Power has 
concluded that these changes do not involve any significant hazards 
considerations.

    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.

[[Page 9503]]

    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 April 8, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J. M. 
Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488. 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, 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 Jack R. Newman, Esq., Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., 1615 L 
Street, N.W., 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 February 29, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. 
Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX 77488.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of March, 1996.


[[Page 9504]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George Kalman,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-5498 Filed 3-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P