[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