[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4148-4152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1847]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
TU Electric; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to
Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
[[Page 4149]]
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-87 and 89, issued to the TU Electric (TUE or the licensee), for
operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2
(CPSES), located in Somervell County, Texas.
The initial notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to
facility operating license and opportunity for hearing was originally
published in the Federal Register (63 FR 58074) on October 29, 1998.
The information included in the supplemental letters indicates the
original notice, that included seven proposed beyond-scope issues
(BSIs) to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs
to be expanded (add fourteen new BSIs) and revised (delete two previous
BSIs) to include a total of nineteen BSIs and requires re-notice in the
Federal Register. This notice supercedes the previous notice.
The proposed amendment, requested by the licensee in a letter dated
May 15, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated June 26, August 5,
August 28, September 24, October 21, October 23, November 24, December
11, December 17 and December 18, 1998, would represent a full
conversion from the current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of
ITS based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. NUREG-1431 has
been developed by the Commission's staff through working groups
composed of both NRC staff members and industry representatives, and
has been endorsed by the staff as part of an industry-wide initiative
to standardize and improve the Technical Specifications (TSs) for
nuclear power plants. As part of this submittal, the licensee has
applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy
Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power
Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal Register
on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS, and, using NUREG-1431 as a
basis, proposed an ITS for CPSES. The criteria in the Final Policy
Statement were subsequently added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical
Specifications,'' in a rule change that was published in the Federal
Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and became effective on August
18, 1995.
This conversion is a joint effort in concert with three other
utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric Company for Diablo Canyon Power
Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-275 and 323); 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). 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 includes the
convention that, if the words in a CTS specification are not the same
as the words in the ITS specification but they mean the same or have
the same requirements as the words in the ITS specification, the
licensees do not indicate or describe a change to the CTS.
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 14 ITS sections, there is also
the following: Enclosure 1, the cross reference table, sorted by CTS
and ITS Specifications; Enclosure 3, 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 applies to;
Enclosure 4, the no significant hazards consideration (NHSC) of 10 CFR
50.91 for the changes to the CTS with generic NHSCs for administrative,
more restrictive, relocation, and moving-out-of-CTS changes, and
individual NHSCs for less restrictive changes and with the organization
of the NHSC evaluation discussed in the beginning of the enclosure; and
Enclosure 6, 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 applies to.
Another convention of the common methodology is that the technical
justifications for the less restrictive changes are included in the
NHSCs.
The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as
administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes and
less restrictive changes.
Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,
renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting,
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1431
and does not involve technical changes to the existing TSs. The
proposed changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc.,
for NUREG-1431 bracketed information (information that must be supplied
on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant),
(b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c)
changing NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing licensee
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or
transient events.
Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TSs. Relocated
changes are those current TSs requirements that do not satisfy or fall
within any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy
statement and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled
documents.
The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described
in Attachment 2 to its May 15, 1997, submittal, which is entitled,
``General Description and Assessment.'' The affected structures,
systems, components or variables are not assumed to be initiators of
analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient
events. The requirements and surveillances for these affected
structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from
the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the quality
assurance program, the final safety analysis report (FSAR), the ITS
BASES, the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) that is incorporated by
reference in the FSAR, the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the
Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST)
Program, or other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these
documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate
control mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC review and
approval. In addition the affected structures, systems, components, or
variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures that are
also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will not impose or
eliminate any requirements.
More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation
[[Page 4150]]
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the CTS that is more
restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1431 that the
licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, they have provided an
explanation of why they have concluded that retaining the more
restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the
facility because of specific design features of the plant.
Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to
individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a)
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution
of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved Standard Technical
Specifications. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 were
reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they are
consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. The
licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific design
basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical basis for
the model requirements in NUREG-1431, thus providing a basis for these
revised TS, or if relaxation of the requirements in the current TS is
warranted based on the justification provided by the licensee.
These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an
analyzed accident or transient event.
In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are differences to the
requirements in both the CTS and the Improved Standard Technical
Specifications (NUREG-1431). The first five BSIs were included in the
previous (superceded notice) and still apply to the conversion, however
there are fourteen additional BSIs. The additional beyond-scope issues
(BSIs) are discussed in the licensee's response to requests for
additional information (RAIs) from the NRC staff. These proposed BSIs
to the ITS conversion are as follows:
1. ITS 3.1.7, a new action added for more than one digital rod
position indicator per group inoperable.
2. ITS surveillance requirement (SR) 3.2.1.2, frequency, within 24
hours for verifying the axial heat flux hot channel factor is within
limit after achieving equilibrium conditions.
3. ITS SR 3.6.3.7, note added to not require leak rate test of
containment purge valves with resilient seals when penetration flow
path is isolated by leak-tested blank flange.
4. ITS LCO 3.7.15, changes reference for the spent fuel pool level
from that above top of fuel stored in racks to that above the top of
racks.
5. ITS 5.6.5a.8, adds refueling boron concentration limits to the
core operating limits report.
The fourteen additional BSIs are listed below with the associated
change number, RAI number, RAI response submittal date, and description
of the change.
6. Change 10-3-LS-37 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q5.5-2, response letter
dated September 24, 1998, the change added an allowance to CTS SR 4.4.9
for the reactor coolant pump flywheel inspection program (ITS 5.5.7) to
provide 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).
7. Change 1-22-M (ITS 3/4.3), question Q3.3-49, response letter
dated November 24, 1998, the change is given in the application.
Quarterly channel operational tests (COTs) would be added to CTS Table
4.3-1 for the power range neutron flux-low, intermediate range neutron
flux, and source range flux trip functions. The CTS only require a COT
prior to startup for these functions. New Note 17 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. In addition, Note 9 is revised such 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. Change 1-7-LS-3 (ITS 3.4/3), question Q3.3-107, response letter
dated November 24, 1998, the changes are given in the application and
would (1) extend the completion time for CTS Action 3.b from no time
specified to 24 hours for channel restoration or changing the power
level to either below P-6 or above P-10, (2) reduce the applicability
of the intermediate range neutron flux channels and deleted CTS Action
3.a as being outside the revised applicability, and (3) add a less
restrictive new action that requires immediate suspension of operations
involving positive reactivity additions and a power reduction below P-6
within 2 hours, but no longer requires a reduction to Mode 3. The
changes would be to CTS Table 3.3-1 (Action 3 and New Action 3.1, and
Function #5 and Footnote h to its applicable modes).
9. Change 1-9-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the
application. The CTS 6.2.2.e requirements concerning overtime would be
replaced by a reference to administrative procedures for the control of
working hours.
10. Change 1-15-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the
application. The proposed change would revise CTS 6.2.2.G 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.
11. Change 2-18-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the
application. The dose rate limits in the Radioactive Effluent Controls
Program for releases to areas beyond the site boundary would be revised
to reflect 10 CFR Part 20 requirements.
12. Change 2-22-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated
September 24, 1998, a new administrative change added to the
application. The Radioactive Effluents Controls Program would be
revised 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.
13. Change 3-11-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated
September 24, 1998, the proposed change would revise the 3-11-A change
submitted in the application. CTS 6.12, which provides high radiation
area access control alternatives pursuant to 10 CFR 20.203(c)(2), would
be revised to meet the current requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and the
guidance in NRC RG 8.3.8, on such access controls.
14. Change 3-18-LS-5(ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter
dated September 24, 1998, a new less restrictive change added to the
application. The CTS 6.9.1.5 requirement to provide documentation of
all challenges to the power operated
[[Page 4151]]
relief valves (PORVs) and safety valves on the reactor coolant system
would be deleted. This is based on NRC Generic Letter 97-02 which
reduced requirements for submitting such information to the NRC and did
not include these valves for information to be submitted.
15. Change 3.19-A (ITS 5.0), question Q5.2-1, response letter dated
September 24, 1998, the administrative change is being withdrawn with
the licensee submitting change 3-11-A above.
16. Change 10-20-LS-39 (ITS 3/4.7), question Q3.7.10-14, response
letter dated October 21, 1998, the change is given in the application
and would revise and add an action to CTS LCO 3.7.7.1, for ventilation
system pressure envelope degradation, that allows 24 hours to restore
the CR pressure envelope through repairs before requiring the unit to
perform an orderly shutdown. The new action has a longer allowed outage
time than LCO 3.0.4 which the CTS would require to be entered
immediately. This change recognizes that the ventilation trains
associated the pressure envelope would still be operable.
17. Change 4-8-LS-34 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-2, response
letter dated September 24, 1998, the change is given in the application
and would limit the CTS SR 4.4.4.2 requirement 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.
18. Change 4-9-LS-36 (ITS 3/4.4), question Q3.4.11-4, response
letter dated September 24, 1998, the Change 4-9-LS-4 is revised to add
a note to Action d for CTS LCO 3.4.4 that would state that the action
does not apply when the PORV block valves are inoperable as a result of
power being removed from the valves in accordance Action b or c for an
inoperable PORV.
19. Change 1-60-A (ITS 3/4.3), question TR 3.3-007, followup items
letter dated December 18, 1998, a new administrative change is being
added to the application. The 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 16.a and 16.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.''
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.
By February 28, 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. Box 19497, Arlington,
TX 76019. 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.
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 Mr. 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
[[Page 4152]]
should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10
CFR 2.714(a)(1)(I)-(v) and 2.714(d).
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 27, 1997, which is 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,
TX 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of January 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-1847 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
