[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7214-7217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3496]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Tu Electric Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses No. 
NPF-87 and No. NPF-89 that were issued to TU Electric (the licensee) 
for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), 
Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment will revise the existing, or current, 
Technical Specifications (CTS) for CPSES in their entirety based on the 
guidance provided in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications, 
Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995, and in the 
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993 
(58 FR 39132). The proposed amendment is in accordance with the 
licensee's amendment request dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by 
eleven letters in 1998 dated June 26, August 5, August 28, September 
24, October 21, October 23, November 24 (two letters), December 11, 
December 17, December 18, and three letters in 1999 dated February 3.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power 
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant 
Technical Specifications (TS). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on 
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants,'' (52 FR 
3788) contained proposed criteria for defining the scope

[[Page 7215]]

of TS. Later, the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical 
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on 
July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since 
publication of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for 
revisions to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' The ``Final 
Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for determining the content of 
TS. To facilitate the development of standard TS for nuclear power 
reactors, each power reactor vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC 
staff developed standard TS. For CPSES, the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications (ISTS) are in NUREG-1431. This document formed the basis 
for the CPSES Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion. The 
NRC Committee to review Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the ISTS, 
made note of its safety merits, and indicated its support of the 
conversion by operating plants to the ISTS.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1431 and on 
guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy Statement. The 
objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, reformat, and 
streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis is 
placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding 
of the TS. The Bases section of the ITS has been significantly expanded 
to clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each 
specification. In addition to NUREG-1431, portions of the CTS were also 
used as the basis for the development of the CPSES ITS. Plant-specific 
issues (e.g., unique design features, requirements, and operating 
practices) were discussed with the licensee, and generic matters with 
Westinghouse and other OGs.
    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 323); 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). It was a goal of the four utilities to make the ITS for all the 
plants as similar as possible. 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 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 ITS sections, there is also the 
following enclosures:
     Enclosure 1, ``Cross-Reference Tables,'' the cross-
reference table connecting each CTS specification (i.e., LCO, required 
action, or SR) to the associated ITS specification, sorted by both CTS 
and ITS specifications.
     Enclosures 3A and 3B, ``Description of Changes to Current 
TS'' and ``Conversion Comparison Table,'' 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 to 
the CTS applies to.
     Enclosure 4, ``No Significant Hazards Considerations,'' 
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.
     Enclosures 6A and 6B, ``Differences From NUREG-1431'' and 
``Conversion Comparison Table,'' 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 
to the ISTS applies to.

The common methodology includes the convention that, if the words in an 
CTS specification are not the same as the words in the ITS 
specification, but the CTS words have the same meaning or have the same 
requirements as the words in the ITS specification, then the licensees 
do not have to indicate or describe a change to the CTS. In general, 
only technical changes have been identified; however, some non-
technical changes have also been identified when the changes cannot 
easily be determined. The portion of any specification which is being 
deleted is struck through (i.e., the deletion is annotated using the 
strike-out feature of the word processing computer program or crossed 
out by hand). Any text being added to a specification is shown by 
shading the text, placing a circle around the new text, or by writing 
the text in by hand. The text being struck through or added is shown in 
the marked-up CTS and ISTS pages in Enclosures 2 (CTS pages) and 5 
(ISTS and ISTS Bases pages) for each ITS section attachment to the 
application. Another convention of the common methodology is that the 
technical justifications for the less restrictive changes are included 
in the NHSCs.
    The proposed changes can be grouped into the following four 
categories: relocated requirements, administrative changes, less 
restrictive changes involving deletion of requirements, and more 
restrictive changes. These categories are as follows:
    1. Relocated requirements (i.e., the licensee's LG or R changes) 
are items which are in the CTS but do not meet the criteria set forth 
in the Final Policy Statement. The Final Policy Statement establishes a 
specific set of objective criteria for determining which regulatory 
requirements and operating restrictions should be included in the TS. 
Relocation of requirements to documents with an established control 
program, controlled by the regulations or the TS, allows the TS to be 
reserved only for those conditions or limitations upon reactor 
operation which are necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal 
situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public 
health and safety, thereby focusing the scope of the TS. In general, 
the proposed relocation of items from the CTS to the Updated Safety 
Analysis Report (USAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, station 
procedures, or ITS Bases follows the guidance of NUREG-1431. Once these 
items have been relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, the 
licensee may revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other 
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural 
means to control changes by the licensee.
    2. Administrative changes (i.e., the licensee's A changes) involve 
the reformatting and rewording of requirements, consistent with the 
style of the ISTS in NUREG-1431, to make the TS more readily 
understandable to station operators and other users. These changes are 
purely editorial in nature, or involve the movement or reformatting of 
requirements without affecting the technical content. Application of a 
standardized format and style will also help ensure consistency is 
achieved among specifications in the TS. During this reformatting and 
rewording process, no technical changes (either actual or 
interpretational) to the TS will be made unless they are identified and 
justified.
    3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements 
involves portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee's LS and TR changes) 
which (1) provide

[[Page 7216]]

information that is descriptive in nature regarding the equipment, 
systems, actions, or surveillances, (2) provide little or no safety 
benefit, and (3) place an unnecessary burden on the licensee. This 
information is proposed to be deleted from the CTS and, in some 
instances, moved to the proposed Bases, USAR, or procedures. The 
removal of descriptive information to the Bases of the TS, USAR, or 
procedures is permissible because these documents will be controlled 
through a process that utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved 
control mechanisms. The relaxations of requirements were the result of 
generic NRC actions or other analyses. They will be justified on a 
case-by-case basis for the CPSES and described in the safety evaluation 
to be issued with the license amendment.
    4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., the licensee's M changes) 
are proposed to be implemented in same areas to impose more stringent 
requirements that are in the CTS. These more restrictive requirements 
are being imposed to be consistent with the ISTS. Such changes have 
been made after ensuring the previously evaluated safety analysis for 
the CPSES was not affected. Also, other more restrictive technical 
changes have been made to achieve consistency, correct discrepancies, 
and remove ambiguities from the TS. Examples of more restrictive 
requirements include: placing a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 
on station equipment which is not required by the CTS to be operable; 
more restrictive requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more 
restrictive surveillance requirements.
    There are nineteen other proposed changes to the CTS that may be 
included in the proposed amendment to convert the CTS to the ITS. These 
are beyond-scope issues (BSIs) changes in that they are changes to both 
the CTS and the ISTS. For the CPSES, these are the following:
    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 verifying the axial heat flux hot channel factor is within 
limit after achieving equilibrium conditions.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. ITS 5.6.5a.8, adds refueling boron concentration limits to the 
core operating limits report.
    The above five BSIs are given in the licensee's application. The 
remaining fourteen BSIs may have been revised by the licensee's 
responses to the NRC requests for additional information (RAIs). The 
format for the fourteen BSIs listed below is the associated change 
number, RAI number, RAI response submittal date, and description of the 
change.
    6. Change 10-3-LS-37 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q5.5-2, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998, the change added an allowance to CTS SR 4.4.9 
for the reactor coolant pump flywheel inspection program (ITS 5.5.7) to 
provide an exception to the examination requirements specified in the 
CTS SR (i.e., regulatory position C.4.b of NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 
1.14, Revision 1).
    7. Change 1-22-M (ITS 3/4.3), question Q3.3-49, response letter 
dated November 24, 1998, the change is given in the application. 
Quarterly channel operational tests (COTs) would be added to CTS Table 
4.3-1 for the power range neutron flux-low, intermediate range neutron 
flux, and source range flux trip functions. The CTS only require a COT 
prior to startup for these functions. New Note 17 would be added to 
require that the new quarterly COT be performed within 12 hours after 
reducing power below P-10 for the power range and intermediate range 
instrumentation (P-10 is the dividing point marking the Applicability 
for these trip functions), if not performed within the previous 92 
days. In addition, Note 9 is revised such that the P-6 and P-10 
interlocks are verified to be in their required state during all COTs 
on the power range neutron flux-low and intermediate range neutron flux 
trip functions.
    8. Change 1-7-LS-3 (ITS 3.4/3), question Q3.3-107, response letter 
dated November 24, 1998, the changes are given in the application and 
would (1) extend the completion time for CTS Action 3.b from no time 
specified to 24 hours for channel restoration or changing the power 
level to either below P-6 or above P-10, (2) reduce the applicability 
of the intermediate range neutron flux channels and deleted CTS Action 
3.a as being outside the revised applicability, and (3) add a less 
restrictive new action that requires immediate suspension of operations 
involving positive reactivity additions and a power reduction below P-6 
within 2 hours, but no longer requires a reduction to Mode 3. The 
changes would be to CTS Table 3.3-1 (Action 3 and New Action 3.1, and 
Function #5 and Footnote h to its applicable modes).
    9. Change 1-9-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the 
application. The CTS 6.2.2.e requirements concerning overtime would be 
replaced by a reference to administrative procedures for the control of 
working hours.
    10. Change 1-15-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the 
application. The purposed change would revise CTS 6.2.2.G to eliminate 
the title of Shift Technical Advisor. The engineering expertise is 
maintained on shift, but a separate individual would not be required as 
allowed by a Commission Policy Statement.
    11. Change 2-18-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the 
application. The dose rate limits in the Radioactive Effluent Controls 
Program for releases to areas beyond the site boundary would be revised 
to reflect 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
    12. Change 2-22-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the 
application. The Radioactive Effluents Controls Program would be 
revised to include clarification statements denoting that the 
provisions of CTS 4.0.2 and 4.0.3, which allow extensions to 
surveillance frequencies, are applicable to these activities.
    13. Change 3-11-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998, the proposed change would revise the 3-11-A change 
submitted in the application. CTS 6.12, which provides high radiation 
area access control alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2), would 
be revised to meet the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and the 
guidance in NRC RG 8.3.8, on such access controls.
    14. Change 3-18-LS-5(ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter 
dated September 24, 1998, a new less restrictive change added to the 
application. The CTS 6.9.1.5 requirement to provide documentation of 
all challenges to the power operated relief valves (PORVs) and safety 
valves on the reactor coolant system would be deleted. This is based on 
NRC Generic Letter 97-02 which reduced requirements for submitting such 
information to the NRC and did not include these valves for information 
to be submitted.
    15. Change 3.19-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 24, 1998, the administrative change is

[[Page 7217]]

being withdrawn with the licensee submitting change 3-11-A above.
    16. Change 10-20-LS-39 (ITS 3/4.7), question Q3.7.10-14, response 
letter dated October 21, 1998, the change is given in the application 
and would revise and add an action to CTS LCO 3.7.7.1, for ventilation 
system pressure envelope degradation, that allows 24 hours to restore 
the CR pressure envelope through repairs before requiring the unit to 
perform an orderly shutdown. The new action has a longer allowed outage 
time than LCO 3.0.4 which the CTS would require to be entered 
immediately. This change recognizes that the ventilation trains 
associated the pressure envelope would still be operable.
    17. Change 4-8-LS-34 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-2, response 
letter dated September 24, 1998, the change is given in the application 
and would limit the CTS SR 4.4.4.2 requirement to perform the 92 day 
surveillance of the pressurizer PORV block valves and the 18 month 
surveillance of the pressurizer PORVs (i.e., perform one complete cycle 
of each valve) to only Modes 1 and 2.
    18. Change 4-9-LS-36 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-4, response 
letter dated September 24, 1998, the Change 4-9-LS-4 is revised to add 
a note to Action d for CTS LCO 3.4.4 that would state that the action 
does not apply when the PORV block valves are inoperable as a result of 
power being removed from the valves in accordance Action b or c for an 
inoperable PORV.
    19. Change 1-60-A (ITS 3/4.3), question TR 3.3-007, followup items 
letter dated December 18, 1998, a new administrative change is being 
added to the application. The change would revise the frequency for 
performing the trip actuating device operational test (TADOT) in CTS 
Table 4.3-1 for the turbine trip (functional units 16.a and 16.b) to be 
consistent with the modes for which the surveillance is required. This 
would be adding a footnote to the TADOT that states ``Prior to 
exceeding the P-9 interlock whenever the unit has been in Mode 3.''

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for CPSES, including the beyond-scope 
issues discussed above. Changes which are administrative in nature have 
been found to have no effect on the technical content of the TS. The 
increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are 
expected to improve the operators control of CPSES in normal and 
accident conditions.
    Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves. 
Future changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee 
under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control mechanisms which will 
ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such 
relocations have been found consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-
1431 and the Commission's Final Policy Statement.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
enhance station safety.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no 
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee, 
their removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations 
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were 
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during 
discussions with the OG, and found to be acceptable for the station. 
Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 have been reviewed by the 
NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
    In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide 
control of station operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    The proposed actions will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no 
significant increase in the occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for CPSES.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 26, 1999, the 
staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Arthur Tate of the 
Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by the 
eleven letters in 1998 dated June 26, August 5, August 28, September 
24, October 21, October 23, November 24 (two letters), December 11, 
December 17, December 18, and three letters in 1999 dated February 3, 
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 8th day of February 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John N. Hannon,
Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects--III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-3496 Filed 2-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P