[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63040-63042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18022]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 [Docket No. 50-275]


Pacific Gas and 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-80, issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E/the licensee), 
for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit No. 1, located in 
San Luis Obispo County, California.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 3.8.4, ``DC Sources--Operating,'' Condition B to extend the 
completion time (CT) to restore an inoperable battery from 2 hours to 
12 hours, provided certain required actions are taken. The extended CT 
would allow sufficient time to correct a degraded condition (e.g., 
either bypass or replace an inoperable battery cell) without 
introducing time pressure as an error precursor. PG&E has requested 
that this amendment be processed on a one-time exigent basis to support 
timely corrective action for the degraded condition affecting a single 
cell that impacts the long-term reliability of Vital Battery 1-1. This 
amendment is being requested on an exigent basis so that the plant will 
avoid the risk of a TS-required shutdown should the degraded battery 
cause the Vital Battery 1-1 to be inoperable.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes add provisions to increase the completion 
time (CT) from two hours to twelve hours, on a one-time basis for 
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1 Vital Battery 1-1. Additional 
Required Actions are specified when this battery, associated with 
the plant Class 1E Direct Current (DC) electrical power subsystem, 
is inoperable. The proposed changes do not physically alter any 
plant structures, systems, or components, and are not accident 
initiators: therefore, there is no effect on the probability of 
accidents previously evaluated. As part of the single failure design 
feature, loss of any one DC electrical power subsystem does not 
prevent the minimum safety function from being performed. Also, the 
proposed changes do not affect the type or amounts of radionuclides 
release following an accident, or affect the initiation and duration 
of their release. Therefore, the consequences of accidents 
previously evaluated, which rely on the Class 1E battery to 
mitigate, are not significantly increased.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different [kind of] accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not involve a change in design, 
configuration, or method of operation of the plant. The proposed 
changes will not alter the manner in which equipment is initiated, 
nor will the functional demands on credit equipment be changed. The 
proposed changes do not impact the interaction of any systems whose 
failure or malfunction can initiate an accident. There are no 
identified redundant components affected by these changes and thus 
there are no new common cause failures or any existing common cause 
failures that are affected by extending the CT. The proposed changes 
do not create any new failure modes.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different [kind of] accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes are based upon both a deterministic 
evaluation and a risk-informed assessment.
    The deterministic evaluation concluded that though one battery 
associated with the Class 1E DC electrical power subsystem is 
inoperable, the redundant operable Class 1E DC electrical power 
subsystems will be able to perform the safety function as described 
in the accident analysis.
    The risk assessment performed to support this license amendment 
request concluded that with additional Required Actions the increase 
in plant risk is small and consistent with the NRC's Safety Goal 
Policy Statement, ``Use of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods in 
Nuclear Activities: Final Policy Statement,'' and guidance contained 
in Regulatory Guides (RG) 1.174, ``An Approach for using 
Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-
Specific Changes to the Licensing Basis,'' and RG 1.177, ``An 
Approach for Plant-Specific Risk-Informed Decisionmaking: Technical 
Specifications.''
    Together, the deterministic evaluation and the risk-informed 
assessment provide assurance that the plant Class 1E DC electrical 
power subsystem will be able to perform its design function with a 
longer CT for an inoperable Unit 1 Vital Battery 1-1 and risk is not 
significantly impacted by the change.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a 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

[[Page 63041]]

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 amendment 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 amendment before the expiration of 
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves 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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing 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. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license 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 and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR part 2. 
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which 
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing 
or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
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/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on 
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts 
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 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.
    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 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. 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.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). ?>
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966.

[[Page 63042]]

A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested 
that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 
301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be 
sent to Richard F. Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. 
Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120, attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 18, 2006, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of October 2006.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alan Wang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-18022 Filed 10-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P