[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31881-31882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15020]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 446]


Texas Utilities Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-87 and Facility Operating License No. NPF-89 issued to Texas 
Utilities Electric Company (the licensee, or TU), for operation of the 
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2, 
respectively, located in Somervell County, Texas.
    The proposed amendments would add a footnote to Technical 
Specification (TS) 4.8.2.1e, ``D.C. Sources--Operating,'' which would, 
on a one-time basis for Unit 1 Battery BT1ED2, allow the licensee to 
substitute a performance discharge test ``* * * in lieu of the battery 
service test required by Specification 4.8.2.1d, twice within a 60 
month interval.'' The footnote further states that ``[t]his one time 
exception expires prior to entry into MODE 4 following the next Unit 1 
outage of sufficient duration to perform a service test.'' The proposed 
amendments would also add a footnote to the comparable Improved TS 
(ITS) that were issued by the NRC staff as License Amendments 64 and 
64, to the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating Licenses on 
February 26, 1999, but not as yet implemented by the licensee. In this 
regard, ITS Surveillance Requirement 3.8.4.7 would receive the same 
footnote added to TS 4.8.2.1e with a minor grammatical change.
    In the licensee's letter dated May 28, 1999, the licensee explained 
the exigent circumstances associated with its May 27, 1999, 
application. The licensee noted that the normal 30-day Federal Register 
notice period could not be utilized because the application results 
from the issuance of an enforcement discretion. The NRC responded to 
the licensee's May 26, 1999, request for an enforcement discretion by 
issuing a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on June 2, 1999. The 
subject NOED indicated that the NRC staff plans to complete its review 
and issue the license amendments within 4 weeks of the date of the 
NOED, which is less time than permitted by the normal 30-day Federal 
Register notice period.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:

    1. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Crediting the battery performance discharge test in lieu of the 
required service test will not impact the ability of the battery to 
perform its safety functions. Therefore, this change will not 
increase 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?
    Crediting the performance discharge test in lieu of the required 
service test will not create a new or different kind of accident.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Crediting the performance discharge test in lieu of the required 
service test does not create any new failure scenarios and no margin 
is expected to be reduced. As such, there is no reduction in any 
margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 July 14, 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.

[[Page 31882]]

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 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.
    If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated May 27, 1999, as supplement by letter 
dated May 28, 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 University of Texas at Arlington Library, Government Publications/
Maps, 702 College, P. O. Box 19497, Arlington, Texas.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack N. Donohew,
Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-15020 Filed 6-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P