[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65617-65619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
Texas Utilities Electric Company, Comanche Peak Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2; 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 Nos.
NPF-87 and NPF-89 issued to Texas Utilities Electric Company (the
licensee) for operation of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units
1 and 2 located in Somervell County, Texas.
The proposed amendment would increase the allowed outage time (AOT)
for a centrifugal charging pump from 72 hours to 7 days and add a
Configuration Risk Management Program.
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 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?
There is no effect on the probability of an event; the only
potential effect is on the capability to mitigate the event. The
centrifugal charging pumps are credited in the Final Safety Analysis
Report Chapter 15
[[Page 65618]]
LOCA analysis for ECCS injection and for the containment sump
recirculation mode for the design-basis LOCA. Increasing the AOT for
the centrifugal charging pumps does not affect analysis assumptions
regarding functioning of required equipment designed to mitigate the
consequences of accidents. Further, the severity of postulated
accidents and resulting radiological effluent releases will not be
affected by the increased AOT.
A reliability analysis of the charging system found the change
to have no significant impact on normal operation or on the RCP seal
cooling function. Therefore, the change would not significantly
increase in the probability of a seal LOCA.
The increase in the AOT potentially affects only the
availability of the charging system for accident mitigation and has
no effect on the ability of other ECCS systems to perform their
functions. Through the use of a probabilistic risk assessment, it
was determined that the proposed change would have an insignificant
effect on the core damage frequency.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specification BASES are
administrative in nature and do not change the specific Technical
Specifications requirements. The changes to the BASES sections of
the Technical Specifications ensure that when the centrifugal
charging pumps are taken out of service, administrative controls are
in place to consider and manage risk associated with the specific
configuration of the plant. Changes to the Administrative Controls
section of the Technical Specifications are administrative in nature
and reflect addition of a configuration risk management program.
These administrative changes provide additional assurance that risk
is appropriately considered and managed during changing plant
configurations in order to assure that intended plant design/safety
functions will be maintained. No design basis accidents are affected
by these proposed administrative changes as they do not impact nor
affect accident analysis assumptions.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility of a new or
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Unavailability of one centrifugal charging pump for a finite
period of time is currently allowed by the Technical Specifications.
Increasing the AOT from 72 hours to 7 days would not change the
method that TU Electric operates CPSES, thus would not create a new
condition. Further, the proposed change would not result in any
physical alteration to any plant system, and there would not be a
change in the method by which any safety related system performs its
function. The ECCS would still be capable of mitigating the
consequences of the design-basis accident LOCA with the one
centrifugal charging pump operable. No new unanalyzed accident would
be created.
The proposed changes to add a configuration risk management
program and reference to that program in the BASES section of the
Technical Specifications for the Centrifugal Charging pumps will not
delete any specification requirement or function already designated
in the Technical Specifications. The administrative changes retain
adequate regulatory basis to ensure that intended plant design/
safety functions will be maintained. These changes are
administrative in nature and do not affect the design or operation
of any system, structure, or component in the plant. Accordingly, no
new failure modes have been defined for any plant system or
component important to safety, nor have any new initiating events
been identified as a result of the proposed changes.
In summary, the proposed changes do not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
The proposed increase in the AOT does not impact either the
physical protective boundaries or performance of safety systems for
accident mitigation. There is no safety analysis impact since the
extension of the centrifugal charging pump AOT interval will have no
effect on any safety limit, protection system setpoint, or limiting
condition of operation. There is no hardware change that would
impact existing safety analysis acceptance criteria, therefore there
is no significant change in the margin of safety.
The proposed changes involve the addition of a configuration
risk management program and reference to that program in the BASES
section of the Technical Specifications for the Centrifugal Charging
pumps affected by License Amendment Request 96-06. These changes are
administrative in nature and do not directly affect any protective
boundaries nor impact the safety limits for the protective
boundaries. The addition of the configuration risk management
program provides additional assurance that adequate regulatory basis
for continued proper administrative review and plant configuration
control to ensure that actions prescribed in plant operating
procedures are maintained so as not to impact the plant's margin of
safety. Therefore, there is no significant reduction in the margin
of safety.
In summary, the proposed change would not have a significant
impact on the 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 the 30-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 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing
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, 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 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 December 28, 1998, 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'' 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
[[Page 65619]]
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 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 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.
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, N.W., Washington, DC, 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 amendment dated August 2, 1996 (TXX-96434), originally
noticed in the Federal Register (62FR50011). The application has been
supplemented by letters dated October 2, 1998 (TXX-98215), and November
13, 1998 (TXX-98241 and TXX-98244), 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,
TX 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of November 1998.
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. 98-31642 Filed 11-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
