[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65617-65619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31642]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Texas Utilities Electric Company, Comanche Peak Steam Electric 
Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, 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 (the 
licensee) for operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 
1 and 2 located in Somervell County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would increase the allowed outage time (AOT) 
for a centrifugal charging pump from 72 hours to 7 days and add a 
Configuration Risk Management Program.
    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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    There is no effect on the probability of an event; the only 
potential effect is on the capability to mitigate the event. The 
centrifugal charging pumps are credited in the Final Safety Analysis 
Report Chapter 15

[[Page 65618]]

LOCA analysis for ECCS injection and for the containment sump 
recirculation mode for the design-basis LOCA. Increasing the AOT for 
the centrifugal charging pumps does not affect analysis assumptions 
regarding functioning of required equipment designed to mitigate the 
consequences of accidents. Further, the severity of postulated 
accidents and resulting radiological effluent releases will not be 
affected by the increased AOT.
    A reliability analysis of the charging system found the change 
to have no significant impact on normal operation or on the RCP seal 
cooling function. Therefore, the change would not significantly 
increase in the probability of a seal LOCA.
    The increase in the AOT potentially affects only the 
availability of the charging system for accident mitigation and has 
no effect on the ability of other ECCS systems to perform their 
functions. Through the use of a probabilistic risk assessment, it 
was determined that the proposed change would have an insignificant 
effect on the core damage frequency.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specification BASES are 
administrative in nature and do not change the specific Technical 
Specifications requirements. The changes to the BASES sections of 
the Technical Specifications ensure that when the centrifugal 
charging pumps are taken out of service, administrative controls are 
in place to consider and manage risk associated with the specific 
configuration of the plant. Changes to the Administrative Controls 
section of the Technical Specifications are administrative in nature 
and reflect addition of a configuration risk management program. 
These administrative changes provide additional assurance that risk 
is appropriately considered and managed during changing plant 
configurations in order to assure that intended plant design/safety 
functions will be maintained. No design basis accidents are affected 
by these proposed administrative changes as they do not impact nor 
affect accident analysis assumptions.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Unavailability of one centrifugal charging pump for a finite 
period of time is currently allowed by the Technical Specifications. 
Increasing the AOT from 72 hours to 7 days would not change the 
method that TU Electric operates CPSES, thus would not create a new 
condition. Further, the proposed change would not result in any 
physical alteration to any plant system, and there would not be a 
change in the method by which any safety related system performs its 
function. The ECCS would still be capable of mitigating the 
consequences of the design-basis accident LOCA with the one 
centrifugal charging pump operable. No new unanalyzed accident would 
be created.
    The proposed changes to add a configuration risk management 
program and reference to that program in the BASES section of the 
Technical Specifications for the Centrifugal Charging pumps will not 
delete any specification requirement or function already designated 
in the Technical Specifications. The administrative changes retain 
adequate regulatory basis to ensure that intended plant design/
safety functions will be maintained. These changes are 
administrative in nature and do not affect the design or operation 
of any system, structure, or component in the plant. Accordingly, no 
new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or 
component important to safety, nor have any new initiating events 
been identified as a result of the proposed changes.
    In summary, the proposed changes do not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    The proposed increase in the AOT does not impact either the 
physical protective boundaries or performance of safety systems for 
accident mitigation. There is no safety analysis impact since the 
extension of the centrifugal charging pump AOT interval will have no 
effect on any safety limit, protection system setpoint, or limiting 
condition of operation. There is no hardware change that would 
impact existing safety analysis acceptance criteria, therefore there 
is no significant change in the margin of safety.
    The proposed changes involve the addition of a configuration 
risk management program and reference to that program in the BASES 
section of the Technical Specifications for the Centrifugal Charging 
pumps affected by License Amendment Request 96-06. These changes are 
administrative in nature and do not directly affect any protective 
boundaries nor impact the safety limits for the protective 
boundaries. The addition of the configuration risk management 
program provides additional assurance that adequate regulatory basis 
for continued proper administrative review and plant configuration 
control to ensure that actions prescribed in plant operating 
procedures are maintained so as not to impact the plant's margin of 
safety. Therefore, there is no significant reduction in the margin 
of safety.
    In summary, the proposed change would not have a significant 
impact on the margin of 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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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, 1998, 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, 
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

[[Page 65619]]

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 20555-0001, 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 George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis 
and Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 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 2, 1996 (TXX-96434), originally 
noticed in the Federal Register (62FR50011). The application has been 
supplemented by letters dated October 2, 1998 (TXX-98215), and November 
13, 1998 (TXX-98241 and TXX-98244), which are 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 20th day of November 1998.

    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. 98-31642 Filed 11-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P