[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25522-25525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-11998]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. Comanche Peak Steam 
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed no Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-87 and NPF-89 issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company, et al. 
(the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric 
Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The CPSES facility is 
located at the licensee's site in Somervell County, Texas.
    The proposed amendments would revise the Technical Specifications 
for fuel storage to increase the spent fuel storage capacity, to add 
fuel pool boron concentration, and to revise the storage configurations 
in the spent fuel pool.
    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.
    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 amendments 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 consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
    This proposed license amendment includes changes which are (1) 
editorial and (2) provide the criteria for acceptable fuel storage 
in high density racks. The editorial changes are purely 
administrative changes and have no impact on the probability or 
consequences of an accident. The revised criteria for acceptable 
fuel storage in the high density racks are discussed below.
    The high density racks differ from the low density racks in that 
the center to center storage cell spacing is decreased from a 
nominal 16 inches to a nominal 9 inches and the high density racks 
are free standing whereas the low density racks are bolted to the 
pool. Administrative controls are used to maintain the specified 
storage patterns and to assure storage of a fuel assembly in a 
proper location based on initial U-235 enrichment, burnup, and decay 
time. The increased storage capacity results in added weight in the 
pools and additional heat loads.
    There is no significant increase in the probability of an 
accident concerning the potential insertion of a fuel assembly in an 
incorrect location in the high density racks. TU [Texas Utilities] 
Electric has used administrative controls to move fuel assemblies 
from location to location since the initial receipt of fuel on site. 
Fuel assembly placement will continue to be controlled pursuant to 
approved fuel handling procedures and will be in accordance with the 
Technical Specification spent fuel rack storage configuration 
limitations.
    There is no increase in the probability of the loss of normal 
cooling to the fuel storage pool water due to the presence of 
soluble boron in the pool water for subcriticality control because a 
concentration of soluble boron similar to that proposed has always 
been maintained in the fuel storage pool water. The amount of 
soluble boron required to offset the reactivity increase associated 
with water temperature outside the normal range was established for 
the proposed storage configurations.
    The consequences of all of these changes have been assessed and 
the current acceptance criteria in the licensing basis of CPSES will 
continue to be met. The nuclear criticality, thermal-hydraulic, 
mechanical, material and structural designs will accommodate these 
changes. Potentially affected analyses, including a dropped spent 
fuel assembly, a loss of spent fuel pool cooling, a seismic event, 
and a fuel assembly placed in a location other than a prescribed 
location, continue to satisfy the CPSES licensing basis acceptance 
criteria. The analysis methods used by TU Electric are consistent 
with methods used by TU Electric in the past or methods used 
elsewhere in the industry and accepted by the NRC.
    Based on the acceptability of the methodology used and 
compliance with the current CPSES licensing basis, TU Electric 
concludes that the full use of the high density racks and the 
increase in storage capacity do 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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The editorial changes to the Technical Specifications have no 
impact on plant hardware or operations and therefore cannot create a 
new or different kind of an accident.
    The potential for criticality in the fuel storage pool is not a 
new or different type of accident. The potential criticality 
accidents have been reanalyzed in the criticality analysis 
(Enclosure 1 [to the application]) to demonstrate that the pool 
remains subcritical.

[[Page 25523]]

    Soluble boron has been maintained in the fuel storage pool water 
since its initial operation. The possibility of a fuel storage pool 
dilution is not affected by the proposed change to the Technical 
specifications. Therefore, the implementation of Technical 
Specification controls for the soluble boron will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accidental pool dilution.
    With credit for soluble boron now a major factor in controlling 
subcriticality, an evaluation of fuel storage pool dilution events 
was completed. The results of the evaluation concluded that an event 
which would result in a reduction of the criticality margin below 
the 5% margin recommended by the NRC is not credible. In addition, 
the no soluble boron 95/95 criticality analysis assures that a boron 
concentration of 0 ppm will not result in criticality.
    The proposed changes which ensure the maintenance of the fuel 
storage pool boron concentration and storage configuration, do not 
represent new concepts. The actual boron concentration in the fuel 
storage pool is currently maintained at 2400 ppm for SFP [spent fuel 
pool]1 and SFP2 for refueling purposes. The criticality analysis 
(Enclosure 2 [to the application]) determined that a boron 
concentration of 750 ppm (non-accident) and 1800 ppm (accident) 
results in a eff [less than or equal to] 0.95.
    There is no significant change in plant configuration, equipment 
design, or usage of plant equipment. The safety analysis for boron 
dilution has been performed; however, the criticality analyses 
assure that the pool will remain subcritical with no credit for 
soluble boron. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    The proposed editorial changes to the Technical Specifications 
have no impact on any acceptance criteria, plant operations or the 
actual failure of any systems, components or structure; therefore 
these administrative changes have no impact on the margin of safety.
    The NRC guidance [Reference 4 [in the application]] has 
established that an evaluation of margin of safety should address 
the following areas: (1) Nuclear criticality considerations, (2) 
Thermal-Hydraulic considerations, (3) Mechanical, material and 
structural consideration.
    Proposed Technical Specifications 3.7.16, 3.7.17, and 4.3.1.1 
and the associated fuel storage pool boron concentration and storage 
requirements will provide adequate margin to assure that the fuel 
storage array will always remain subcritical by the 5% margin 
recommended by the NRC. Those limits are based on the criticality 
analysis (Enclosure 2 [to the application]) performed in accordance 
with the storage rack criticality analysis methodology described in 
Reference 8 [in the application].
    While the criticality analysis utilized credit for soluble 
boron, the storage configurations have been defined using 
keff calculations to ensure that the spent fuel rack 
keff will be less than 1.0 with no soluble boron.
    Soluble boron credit is used to offset off-normal conditions 
(such as a misplaced assembly) and to provide subcritical margin 
such that the fuel storage pool keff is maintained less 
than or equal to 0.95.
    The loss of substantial amount of soluble boron from the spent 
fuel pools which could lead to exceeding a keff of 0.95 
has been evaluated and shown not to be credible. These evaluations 
show that the dilution of the spent fuel [pool's] boron 
concentration from 1800 ppm to 750 ppm is not credible and that the 
spent fuel rack keff will remain less than 1.0 when 
flooded with unborated water.
    The thermal-hydraulic evaluation demonstrates that the 
temperature margin of safety will be maintained. Evaluation of the 
spent fuel pool cooling system for the increased heat loads shows 
that the spent fuel cooling system will maintain the abnormal 
maximum temperature of the spent fuel pool water within the limits 
of the existing licensing basis (i.e., below 212 deg. F). 
Additionally, it shows that the normal maximum temperature will be 
within the existing design basis temperatures for the high density 
racks, liner, structure, and cooling system and will not have any 
significant impact on the spent fuel pool demineralizers. Thus, the 
existing licensing basis remains valid, and there is no significant 
reduction in the margin of safety for the thermal-hydraulic design 
or spent fuel cooling.
    The main safety function of the spent fuel pool and the high 
density racks is to maintain the spent fuel assemblies in a safe 
configuration through normal and abnormal operating conditions. The 
design basis floor responses of the Fuel Building were confirmed to 
be adequate and conservative and the floor loading will not exceed 
the capacity of the Fuel Building. The structural considerations of 
the high density racks maintain margin of safety against tilting and 
deflection or movement, such that the high density racks do not 
impact each other or the pool walls, damage spent fuel assemblies, 
or cause criticality concerns. Thus, the margin of safety with 
respect to mechanical, material or structural considerations is not 
significantly reduced by the full use of the high density racks.

    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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve 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's 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 June 11, 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 University of Texas at Arlington Library, 
Government Publications/Maps, 702 College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, 
Texas. 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

[[Page 25524]]

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 
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendments.
    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, 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).
    The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on 
an application for license amendments falling within the scope of 
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of 
any party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in 
controversy among the parties.''
    The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on 
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's 
rules, and the designation, following argument, of only those factual 
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with 
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those 
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing 
after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under 
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing 
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for 
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be 
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing 
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely 
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely 
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the 
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing 
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If 
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing 
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid 
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time 
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to 
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, 
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the 
usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated February 11, 1999, 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, Texas.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of May 1999.


[[Page 25525]]


    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David H. Jaffe,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & 
Decommissioning, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-11998 Filed 5-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P