[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14946-14950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7595]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 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-80 and 82, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or the 
licensee), for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 
2 (DCPP), located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
    The initial notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to 
facility operating license and opportunity for hearing was originally 
published in the Federal Register (63 FR 55152) on October 14, 1998. 
The information included in the supplemental letters indicates that the 
original notice, that included 13 proposed beyond-scope issues (BSIs) 
to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs to be 
expanded (to add 15 new BSIs) and revised (to delete 8 previous BSIs) 
to include a total of 20 BSIs. This notice supercedes the previous 
notice.
    The proposed amendment, requested by the licensee in a letter dated 
June 2, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated January 9, June 25, 
August 5, August 28, September 25, October 16, October 23, November 25, 
December 4, December 17, and December 30, 1998, and February 24 and 
March 10, 1999, would represent a full conversion from the current 
Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of 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 (TSs) 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 DCPP. 
The criteria in the Final Policy Statement were subsequently added to 
10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications,'' in a

[[Page 14947]]

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: Texas Utilities Electric for Comanche Peak Steam Electric 
Station, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445 and 446); 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 (NSHC) of 10 CFR 
50.91 for the changes to the CTS with generic NSHCs for administrative, 
more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and 
individual NSHCs for less restrictive changes and with the organization 
of the NSHC 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 
NSHCs.
    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 TSs. 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 the TSs. Relocated 
changes are those current TSs 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 June 2, 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 Equipment Control Guidelines (EGC) 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 TSs 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

[[Page 14948]]

differences to the requirements in both the CTS and the Improved 
Standard Technical Specifications (NUREG-1431). The first five BSIs 
were included in the previous (superceded notice) and still apply to 
the conversion, however there are fourteen additional BSIs. The 
additional beyond-scope issues (BSIs) are discussed in the licensee's 
response to requests for additional information (RAIs) from the NRC 
staff. These proposed BSIs to the ITS conversion are as follows:
    1. ITS 3.1.7. Adds a new action for more than one digital rod 
position indicator (DRPI) per group inoperable.
    2. ITS Surveillance Requirements (SR) 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2. Changes 
the frequency to allow 24 hours for verifying that the axial heat flux 
hot channel factor is within limit after achieving equilibrium 
conditions.
    3. ITS SR 3.6.3.7. A note is added to not require leak rate test of 
containment purge valves with resilient seals when penetration flow 
path is isolated by test-tested blank flange.
    4. ITS 3.1.3 and 5.6.5. Adds moderator temperature coefficient to 
the core operating limits report.
    5. ITS 3.9.1 and 5.6.5. Adds refueling boron concentration to the 
core operating limits report.
    The format for the fifteen BSIs listed below is the associated 
change number, RAI number, RAI response submittal date, and description 
of the change.
    6. Change 2-17-LS-1 (CTS 6.0) in the application and difference 
5.5-14 to the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ITS 5.0), 
question Q5.5-2, response letter dated September 25, 1998. The proposed 
change adds an allowance to CTS SR 6.8.4.i for the reactor coolant pump 
flywheel inspection program (ITS 5.5.7) to permit 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) that is 
consistent with WCAP-14535, ``Topical Report on Reactor Coolant Pump 
Flywheel Inspection Elimination.''
    7. Change 1-22-M (CTS 3/4.3), question Q3.3-49, response letter 
dated December 4, 1998. The proposed change is a revision to the 
original application. Quarterly channel operational tests (COTs) would 
be added to CTS Table 4.3-1 for the power range neutron flux-low and 
intermediate range neutron flux. The CTS only require a COT prior to 
startup for these functions. New Note 19 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. New Note 20 
would be added to state 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 1-9-A (CTS 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 25, 1998. A new administrative change is added. The CTS 
6.2.2.f requirements concerning overtime would be replaced by a 
reference to administrative procedures for the control of working 
hours.
    9. Change 1-15-A (CTS 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 25, 1998. A new administrative change is added. The proposed 
change would revise CTS 6.2.4 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.
    10. Change 2-18-A (CTS 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 25, 1998. A new administrative change is added. The dose rate 
limits in CTS 6.8.4.g on the Radioactive Effluent Controls Program for 
releases to areas beyond the site boundary would be revised to reflect 
10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
    11. Change 2-22-A (CTS 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 25, 1998. A new administrative change is added. The 
requirements in CTS 6.8.4.g on 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.
    12. Change 3-11-A (CTS 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated 
September 25, 1998. The proposed change is a revision to the original 
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 8.38, ``Control of Access to High and Very High Radiation Areas 
in Nuclear Power Plants,'' on such access controls.
    13. Change 3-18-LS-5 (CTS 6.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter 
dated September 25, 1998. A new less restrictive change is added. The 
CTS 6.9.1.7 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, ``Revised Contents of the Monthly Operating Report,'' 
which reduced the requirements for submitting such information to the 
NRC. The GL did not include these valves for information to be 
submitted.
    14. Change 4-8-LS-34 (CTS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-2, response 
letter dated September 25, 1998. The proposed change was requested in 
the original application. The proposed change would limit the CTS SRs 
4.4.4.1.a and 4.4.4.2 requirements 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.
    15. Change 4-9-LS-36 (CTS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-4, response 
letter dated September 25, 1998. The proposed change is added. The 
proposed change would limit the CTS 4.4.4.2 requirement to perform the 
92-day surveillance of the pressurizer PORV block valves in that the SR 
would not be performed if the PORV block valve is closed to meet Action 
a of CTS LCO 3.4.4. Action a is for an PORV being inoperable, but 
capable of being cycled.
    16. Change 1-60-A (CTS 3/4.3), question TR 3.3-007, followup items 
letter dated December 30, 1998. A new administrative change (identified 
as TR 3.3-007 on the marked up pages) is added to be identified as 
Change 1-60-A to the CTS. 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 17.a and 17.b) to be 
consistent with the modes for which the surveillance is required. This 
would add a footnote to the TADOT that states ``Prior to exceeding the 
P-9 interlock whenever the unit has been in Mode 3.''
    17. Change 1-18-LS-11 (CTS 3/4.8). The proposed change was 
requested in the original application and addressed in Q3.8.1-18 of the 
March 10, 1999 letter. The change would revise the diesel generator 
(DG) loading requirements for the load rejection test in CTS SR 
4.8.1.1.2.b.4 to specify a range of acceptable loads in kW without 
tripping instead of specifying only a single minimum acceptable kW 
load. The CTS require that the minimum load for the load rejection test 
in SR 4.8.1.1.2.b.4 is 2484 kW and the proposed range of loads is 
2370 kW and  2610 kW.
    18. Change 1-27-LS-9 (CTS 3/4.8). The proposed change was requested 
in the original application and addressed in Q3.8.1-18 of the March 10, 
1999,

[[Page 14949]]

letter. The change would increase the maximum allowable DG voltage 
following load rejection in CTS SR 4.8.1.1.2.b.4 from 4580 to 6200 
volts.
    19. Change 1-76-LS-29 (CTS 3/4.8). The proposed change is added and 
addressed in Q3.8.1-33 of the March 10, 1999, letter. The change would 
remove the wording ``during shutdown'' from the frequency of CTS SR 
4.8.1.1.1.b.1 for manual bus transfers, SR 4.8.1.1.2b.4 for emergency 
diesel generator (EDG) full load testing, and SR 4.8.1.1.2.b.8 for the 
EDG 24-hour load run testing. The change will facilitate post 
maintenance testing of an EDG without requiring a plant shutdown.
    20. Change 1-3-LS1, (CTS 3/4.3), question Q 1-B GEN, response 
letter dated December 4, 1998. The proposed change would incorporate 
WCAP 13632-P-A, ``Eliminate Response Time Testing of Pressure 
Sensors,'' into CTS SR 4.3.1.2 and SR 4.3.2.2, to state that the 
function shall be ``verified'' rather than ``demonstrated.'' This 
changes the Bases for ITS SR 3.3.1.16 and SR 3.3.2.10 to allow the 
elimination of pressure sensor response time testing.
    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 April 28, 1999, 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 California Polytechnic State University, 
Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, 
San Luis Obispo, California 93407. 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 Christopher J. Warner, Esq., Pacific 
Gas & Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120, 
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 June 2, 1997, and supplemental letters 
dated January 9, June 25, August 5, August 28, September 25, October 
16, October 23, November 25, December 4, December 17, and December 30, 
1998, and February 24 and March 10, 1999, 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 California Polytechnic State University, 
Robert E. Kennedy Library, Government Documents and Maps Department, 
San Luis Obispo, California 93407.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 1999.


[[Page 14950]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Steven D. Bloom,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-7595 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P