[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