[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45278-45280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22634]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Houston Lighting & 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 
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
And Opportunity For a Hearing

[Docket Nos. 50-498 And 50-499]
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-76 and NPF-80 issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company, et. al., 
(the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Matagorda County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would revise the allowed tolerance of the 
reactor coolant system volume provided in Technical Specification 5.4.2 
to account for steam generator tube plugging.
    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:
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91, this analysis provides a determination 
that the proposed change to the Technical Specifications described 
previously does not involve any significant hazards consideration as 
defined in 10 CFR 50.92.
    1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change increases the range given in the Technical 
Specifications allowed for total water and steam volume of the Reactor 
Coolant System. Increasing the range to incorporate volume reduction 
caused by plugging 10% of steam generator tubes has been reviewed by 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the exception of the 
uncontrolled dilution event. This event is addressed in South Texas 
Project Updated Final Safety Analysis Report Section 15.4.6. Plugging 
of steam generator tubes and the resulting reduction in Reactor Coolant 
System volume are not precursors to occurrence of an uncontrolled boron 
dilution event.
    Reduced Reactor Coolant System volume results in less time 
available to an operator to respond to an uncontrolled boron dilution 
event; however, uncontrolled boron dilution event analyses assuming 10% 
tube plugging continue to demonstrate that there is adequate time (at 
least 15 minutes) prior to loss of shutdown margin for the operator to 
manually terminate the source of the dilution flow in the full power, 
start-up, hot standby, hot shutdown, and cold shutdown (with the 
Reactor Coolant System filled) modes of operation. An uncontrolled 
boron dilution event is precluded by administrative controls during 
refueling or during cold shutdown with the Reactor Coolant System not 
filled. Procedures and design features continue to ensure proper and 
timely response to an uncontrolled dilution event.
    Based on the continued ability to respond to an uncontrolled boron

[[Page 45279]]

dilution event in accordance with design, this change does not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change revises the allowed range of the total water 
and steam volume of the Reactor coolant System as stated in the 
Technical Specifications; this change has been reviewed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission with the exception of uncontrolled boron dilution 
events as addressed in Section 15.4.6 of the South Texas Project 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change does not 
modify or remove any plant design requirement, or require installation 
of any new or different kind of equipment. The change also does not 
involve any significantly new or different mode of operation of the 
plant.
    There are no new or different kinds of accidents created as a 
result of this change.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in 
a margin of safety.
    Reduction in reactor coolant system volume associated with 10% 
plugging of steam generator tubes has been reviewed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission with the exception of uncontrolled boron dilution 
events as described in Updated Final Safety Analysis Report section 
15.4.6. The reduction in Reactor Coolant System volume associated with 
steam generator tube plugging has an adverse effect on the uncontrolled 
boron dilution event transient in that less time is available for 
operator action to correct the situation. However, assumptions for 
active reactor coolant system volumes that include one or more steam 
generators have been adjusted to reflect 10% steam generator tube 
plugging for design basis analyses. Uncontrolled boron dilution event 
analyses demonstrate that, with 10% steam generator tube plugging, 
there continues to be adequate time (at least 15 minutes) for operator 
action to terminate dilution flow prior to loss of shutdown margin. 
Therefore, the margin of safety is not significantly reduced by this 
change.

Conclusion

    Based on the information presented above, the proposed change does 
not involve a significant hazards consideration and will not have a 
significant effect on the safe operation of the plant as previously 
analyzed. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that operation of 
the South Texas Project in accordance with the proposed revised 
Technical Specification will not endanger the public health and 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 September 25, 1997, 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. 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

[[Page 45280]]

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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. 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 Jack R. Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5869, 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 August 14, 1997, 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of August 1997.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Acting Director, Project Directorate IV/1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-22634 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P