[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58074-58076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28993]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]


Tu Electric; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to 
Facility Operating License 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 the TU Electric (TUE or the licensee), for 
operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2 
(CPSES), located in Somervell County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment, requested by the licensee in a letter dated 
May 15, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated June 26, August 5, 
August 28, and September 24, and October 21, 1998, would represent a 
full conversion from the current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a 
set of improved Technical Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1431, 
``Standard Technical Specifications, Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, 
dated April 1995. NUREG-1431 has been developed by the Commission's 
staff through working groups composed of both NRC staff members and 
industry representatives, and has been endorsed by the staff as part of 
an industry-wide initiative to standardize and improve the Technical 
Specifications for nuclear power plants. As part of this submittal, the 
licensee has applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final 
Policy Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear 
Power Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal 
Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS, and, using NUREG-
1431 as a basis, proposed an ITS for CPSES. The criteria in the Final 
Policy Statement were subsequently added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical 
Specifications,'' in a rule change that was published in the Federal 
Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and became effective on August 
18, 1995.
    This conversion is a joint effort in concert with three other 
utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric Company for Diablo Canyon Power 
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323);

[[Page 58075]]

Union Electric Company for Callaway Plant (Docket No. 50-483); and Wolf 
Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation for Wolf Creek Generating Station 
(Docket No. 50-482). This joint effort includes a common methodology 
for the licensees in marking-up the CTS and NUREG-1431 Specifications, 
and the NUREG-1431 Bases, that has been accepted by the staff. This 
includes the convention that, if the words in a CTS specification are 
not the same as the words in the ITS specification but they mean the 
same or have the same requirements as the words in the ITS 
specification, the licensees do not indicate or describe a change to 
the CTS.
    This common methodology is discussed at the end of Enclosure 2, 
``Mark-Up of Current TS'; Enclosure 5a, ``Mark-Up of NUREG-1431 
Specifications'; and Enclosure 5b, ``Mark-Up of NUREG-1431 Bases, for 
each of the 14 separate ITS sections that were submitted with the 
licensee's application. For each of the 14 ITS sections, there is also 
the following: Enclosure 1, the cross reference table, sorted by CTS 
and ITS Specifications; Enclosure 3, the description of the changes to 
the CTS section and the comparison table showing which plants (of the 
four licensees in the joint effort) that each change applies to; 
Enclosure 4, the no significant hazards consideration (NHSC) of 10 CFR 
50.91 for the changes to the CTS with generic NHSCs for administrative, 
more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and 
individual NHSCs for less restrictive changes and with the organization 
of the NHSC evaluation discussed in the beginning of the enclosure; and 
Enclosure 6, the descriptions of the differences from NUREG-1431 
Specifications and the comparison table showing which plants (of the 
four licensees in the joint effort) that each difference applies to. 
Another convention of the common methodology is that the technical 
justifications for the less restrictive changes are included in the 
NHSCs.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into 
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes and 
less restrictive changes.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1431 
and does not involve technical changes to the existing TS. The proposed 
changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc., for 
NUREG-1431 bracketed information (information that must be supplied on 
a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant), (b) 
identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c) 
changing NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing licensee 
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events.
    Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables 
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. Relocated changes 
are those current TS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within 
any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy statement 
and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described 
in Attachment 2 to its May 15, 1997, submittal, which is entitled, 
``General Description and Assessment.'' The affected structures, 
systems, components or variables are not assumed to be initiators of 
analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient 
events. The requirements and surveillances for these affected 
structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from 
the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the quality 
assurance program, the final safety analysis report (FSAR), the ITS 
BASES, the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) that is incorporated by 
reference in the FSAR, the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the 
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST) 
Program, or other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these 
documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate 
control mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC review and 
approval. In addition the affected structures, systems, components, or 
variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures that are 
also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will not impose or 
eliminate any requirements.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in 
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the CTS that is more 
restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1431 that the 
licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, they have provided an 
explanation of why they have concluded that retaining the more 
restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the 
facility because of specific design features of the plant.
    Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is 
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are 
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to 
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TS may be 
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to 
individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) 
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from 
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution 
of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 were 
reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they are 
consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. The 
licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific design 
basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical basis for 
the model requirements in NUREG-1431, thus providing a basis for these 
revised TS, or if relaxation of the requirements in the current TS is 
warranted based on the justification provided by the licensee.
    These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less 
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in 
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an 
analyzed accident or transient event.
    In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are differences to the 
requirements in both the CTS and the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (NUREG-1431). These proposed beyond-scope issues to the 
ITS conversion are as follows:
    1. ITS 3.1.7, a new action added for more than one digital rod 
position indicator per group inoperable.
    2. ITS surveillance requirement (SR) 3.2.1.2, frequency, within 24 
hours for

[[Page 58076]]

verifying the axial heat flux hot channel factor is within limit after 
achieving equilibrium conditions.
    3. ITS LCO 3.5.5, Action A, increases the reactor coolant pump seal 
injection flow completion time from 4 to 72 hours for the action.
    4. ITS SR 3.6.3.7, note added to not require leak rate test of 
containment purge valves with resilient seals when penetration flow 
path is isolated by leak-tested blank flange.
    5. ITS LCO 3.7.15, changes reference for the spent fuel pool level 
from that above top of fuel stored in racks to that above the top of 
racks.
    6. ITS 5.6.5, adds refueling boron concentration limits to the core 
operating limits report.
    7. ITS 5.7, changes limits for high radiation areas to reflect the 
requirements of revised 10 CFR Part 20.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    By November 30, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility 
operating licenses 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, 
TX 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 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 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 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.
    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 Mr. George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, 
Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 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).
    If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may 
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior 
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further 
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant 
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 27, 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 University of Texas at Arlington Library, 
Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, 
TX 76019.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of October.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-28993 Filed 10-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P