[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14623-14625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
TXU Generation Company LP; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station,
Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to
Renewed 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 Nos.
NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to TXU Generating Company LP (the licensee),
for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit Nos. 1
and 2, respectively, located in Somervell County, Texas.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS)
3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.'' Specifically, the proposed change
would revise the Completion Time for TS 3.8.1, Condition F, Required
Action F.1, from 12 hours to 24 hours.
The existing TS 3.8.1, Condition F, requires that an inoperable
safety injection (SI) sequencer must be restored to OPERABLE status
within 12 hours. If this Completion Time is not met, Condition G
becomes applicable and the plant must be shut down to at least MODE 3
within the following 6 hours. The proposed change to the Completion
Time for TS 3.8.1, Condition F, Required Action F.1, would provide more
time to complete necessary repairs and required post-work testing to
restore an inoperable SI sequencer to OPERABLE status prior to
commencing a plant shutdown to MODE 3.
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.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR), Section 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)
[[Page 14624]]
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 change to the Completion Time for TS 3.3.2 [``ESFAS
(Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System) Instrumentation''],
Condition F, does not change the overall protection system
performance which will remain within the bounds of the previously
performed accident analyses since no hardware changes are proposed.
The same reactor trip system (RTS) and engineered safety feature
actuation system (ESFAS) instrumentation will continue to be used.
The protection systems will continue to function in a manner
consistent with the plant design basis. This change to the Technical
Specifications does not result in a condition where the design,
material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to
the change are altered.
The proposed change will not modify any system interface. The
proposed change will not affect the probability of any event
initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an
increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related
equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There
will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident
mitigation performance. The proposed change will not alter any
assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological
consequence evaluations in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report].
The proposed change to the Completion Time does not increase the
probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed
change does not change the response of the plant to any accidents
and has no impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS signals.
The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable and the proposed
change does not result in an increase in the risk of plant
operation.
The proposed change does not adversely affect accident
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions,
conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which
the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not
alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components
(SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance
limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term,
containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in
evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously
evaluated. The proposed change is consistent with safety analysis
assumptions and resultant consequences.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 change involves no hardware changes nor are there
any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant system
performs its safety function. The proposed change will not affect
the normal method of plant operation. No performance requirements
will be affected or eliminated. The proposed change will not result
in physical alteration to any plant system nor will there be any
change in the method by which any safety-related plant system
performs its safety function.
There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident
analysis assumptions.
No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure
mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result
of this change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges
imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not affect the acceptance criteria for
any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis
Limit (SAL). There will be no effect on the manner in which safety
limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for
operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant
systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection
functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, DNBR
[departure from nucleate boiling ratio] limits, FQ [Heat Flux
Channel Factor], F[Delta]H [Enthalpy Rise hot Channel], LOCA [loss
of coolant accident], PCT [Peak Cladding temperature], peak local
power density, or any other margin of safety. The radiological dose
consequence acceptance criteria listed in the Standard Review Plan
will continue to be met.
Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained and diversity with
regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered
safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited
as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the
accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will
not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design
basis.
Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in
an overall improvement in safety since longer repair times
associated with increased Completion Times will lead to higher
quality repairs and improved reliability. The increased Completion
Time for an inoperable Safety Injection Sequencer will provide
additional time to complete test and maintenance activities while at
power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages related to
compliance with TS 3.3.2, Condition G, which requires plant shutdown
to Mode 3 within 6 hours.
Therefore the proposed change does not involve a 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
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 amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place 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, 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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1F21, 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
[[Page 14625]]
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''
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 O1F21, 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 requestors/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 is aware and on which the
petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
The petition must include 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/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. 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 George L. Edgar, Esq.,
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036,
the attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 22, 2006, as supplemented by
letter dated September 12, 2006, which is available for public
inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
File Public Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.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, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mohan C. Thadani,
Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-5642 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P