[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 26, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28532-28535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13420]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Diablo Canyon Power Plant, 
Units 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses 
No. DPR-80 and No. DPR-82 that were issued to Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company (the licensee) for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, 
Units 1 and 2 (DCPP), located in San Luis Obispo County, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendments will revise the existing, or current, 
Technical Specifications (CTS) for DCPP 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 amendments are in accordance with the 
licensee's amendment request dated June 2, 1997, as supplemented by 
letters in 1998 dated January 9, June 25, August 5, August 28, 
September 25, October 16, October 23, November 25, December 4, December 
17, and December 30, and in 1999 dated February 24, March 10, April 28, 
May 11, and May 19.

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 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 DCPP, the Improved Standard Technical Specifications (ISTS) are 
in NUREG-1431. This document formed part of the basis for the DCPP 
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 DCPP ITS. Plant-specific 
issues (e.g., unique design features, requirements, and operating 
practices) were discussed with the licensee, and generic matters were 
discussed with Westinghouse and other OGs.
    This conversion is a joint effort in concert with three other 
utilities: TU Electric for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 
1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446); 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). 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 (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.
     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.

[[Page 28533]]

    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 NSHCs.
    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, plant 
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 plant 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 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 DCPP 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 some areas to impose more stringent 
requirements than are in the CTS. In some cases, 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 DCPP 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 plant 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 other proposed changes to the CTS that may be included in 
the proposed amendments to convert the CTS to the ITS. These are 
beyond-scope issues (BSIs) in that they are changes to both the CTS and 
the ISTS. For the DCPP, these are the following:
    1. The proposed change to ITS 3.1.7 adds a new action for more than 
one digital rod position indicator (DRPI) per group inoperable.
    2. The proposed change to ITS Surveillance Requirements (SR) 
3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.1 would revise the frequency to within 24 hours for 
verifying the axial heat flux hot channel factor is within limit after 
achieving equilibrium conditions.
    3. The proposed change to ITS SR 3.6.3.7 adds a note 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. The proposed change to ITS 3.1.3 and 5.6.5 adds moderator 
temperature coefficient to the Core Operating Limits Report.
    5. The proposed change to ITS 3.9.1 and 5.6.5 adds refueling boron 
concentration to the Core Operating Limits Report.
    6. 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. 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. A 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. A 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. The proposed change would revise requirements concerning 
overtime by replacing CTS 6.2.2.f with a reference to administrative 
procedures for the control of working hours.

[[Page 28534]]

    9. 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. The proposed change would revise the dose rate limits in the 
Radioactive Effluent Controls Program for releases to areas beyond the 
site boundary to reflect 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
    11. The proposed change would revise the Radioactive Effluents 
Controls Program 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. CTS provides alternative high radiation area access control 
alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2). The proposed change would 
revise CTS 6.12 to meet the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and 
the guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 8.38, ``Control of Access to High 
and Very High Radiation Areas in Nuclear Power Plants'' for such access 
controls.
    13. The proposed change would delete 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. The 
proposed change is based on Generic Letter 97-02, ``Revised Contents of 
the Monthly Operating Report,'' which reduced the requirement for 
submitting such information to the NRC. GL-97-02 did not include these 
valves for information to be submitted.
    14. 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. 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 a PORV being 
inoperable, but capable of being cycled.
    16. The proposed 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 be 
adding a footnote to the TADOT that states ``Prior to exceeding the P-9 
interlock whenever the unit has been in Mode 3.''
    17. The proposed 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. The proposed 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. The proposed 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. The proposed change incorporates 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.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed 
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for DCPP, 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 DCPP 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, the Commission's Final Policy Statement, and 10 CFR 50.36, as 
amended.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to 
enhance plant 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 plant. 
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 plant operations such that reasonable assurance will be 
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately 
protected.
    The proposed amendments will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, will not change the quantity or types of any 
effluent that may be released offsite, and will not significantly 
increase the occupational or public exposure. Also, these changes do 
not increase the licensed power and allowable effluents for the plant. 
The changes will not create any new or unreviewed environmental impacts 
that were not considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) 
related to the operation of DCPP, dated May 1973 and addendum dated May 
1976. Therefore, there are no significant radiological impacts 
associated with the proposed amendments.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
amendments involve features located entirely within the restricted area 
for the plant defined in 10 CFR Part 20. They do not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and have no other environmental impact. 
They do not increase any discharge limit for the plant. Therefore, 
there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed amendments.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendments.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed amendments, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. The principal alternative to the proposed amendments

[[Page 28535]]

would be to deny the amendments. Denial of the licensee's application 
would not reduce the environmental impacts of DCPP operations, but it 
would prevent the safety benefits to the plant from the conversion to 
the ITS. 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 FES for DCPP.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 2, 1999, the staff 
consulted with the California State official, Mr. Steve Hsu of the 
Radiologic Health Branch of the State Department of Health Services, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed amendments. The 
State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed amendments 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 June 2, 1997, as supplemented by letters 
in 1998 dated January 9, June 25, August 5, August 28, September 25, 
October 16, October 23, November 25, December 4, December 17, and 
December 30, and in 1999 dated February 24, March 10, April 28, May 11, 
and May 19, 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 20th day of May 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Steven D. Bloom,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-13420 Filed 5-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P