[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7214-7217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3496]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
Tu Electric Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating Licenses No.
NPF-87 and No. NPF-89 that were issued to TU Electric (the licensee)
for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES),
Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed amendment will revise the existing, or current,
Technical Specifications (CTS) for CPSES in their entirety based on the
guidance provided in NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications,
Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995, and in the
Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993
(58 FR 39132). The proposed amendment is in accordance with the
licensee's amendment request dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by
eleven letters in 1998 dated June 26, August 5, August 28, September
24, October 21, October 23, November 24 (two letters), December 11,
December 17, December 18, and three letters in 1999 dated February 3.
The Need for the Proposed Action
It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant
Technical Specifications (TS). The ``NRC Interim Policy Statement on
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants,'' (52 FR
3788) contained proposed criteria for defining the scope
[[Page 7215]]
of TS. Later, the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical
Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on
July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since
publication of the interim policy statement and formed the basis for
revisions to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical Specifications.'' The ``Final
Rule'' (60 FR 36953) codified criteria for determining the content of
TS. To facilitate the development of standard TS for nuclear power
reactors, each power reactor vendor owners' group (OG) and the NRC
staff developed standard TS. For CPSES, the Improved Standard Technical
Specifications (ISTS) are in NUREG-1431. This document formed the basis
for the CPSES Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion. The
NRC Committee to review Generic Requirements (CRGR) reviewed the ISTS,
made note of its safety merits, and indicated its support of the
conversion by operating plants to the ISTS.
Description of the Proposed Change
The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1431 and on
guidance provided by the Commission in its Final Policy Statement. The
objective of the changes is to completely rewrite, reformat, and
streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis is
placed on human factors principles to improve clarity and understanding
of the TS. The Bases section of the ITS has been significantly expanded
to clarify and better explain the purpose and foundation of each
specification. In addition to NUREG-1431, portions of the CTS were also
used as the basis for the development of the CPSES ITS. Plant-specific
issues (e.g., unique design features, requirements, and operating
practices) were discussed with the licensee, and generic matters with
Westinghouse and other OGs.
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). It was a goal of the four utilities to make the ITS for all the
plants as similar as possible. 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 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 ITS sections, there is also the
following enclosures:
Enclosure 1, ``Cross-Reference Tables,'' the cross-
reference table connecting each CTS specification (i.e., LCO, required
action, or SR) to the associated ITS specification, sorted by both CTS
and ITS specifications.
Enclosures 3A and 3B, ``Description of Changes to Current
TS'' and ``Conversion Comparison Table,'' 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 to
the CTS applies to.
Enclosure 4, ``No Significant Hazards Considerations,''
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.
Enclosures 6A and 6B, ``Differences From NUREG-1431'' and
``Conversion Comparison Table,'' 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
to the ISTS applies to.
The common methodology includes the convention that, if the words in an
CTS specification are not the same as the words in the ITS
specification, but the CTS words have the same meaning or have the same
requirements as the words in the ITS specification, then the licensees
do not have to indicate or describe a change to the CTS. In general,
only technical changes have been identified; however, some non-
technical changes have also been identified when the changes cannot
easily be determined. The portion of any specification which is being
deleted is struck through (i.e., the deletion is annotated using the
strike-out feature of the word processing computer program or crossed
out by hand). Any text being added to a specification is shown by
shading the text, placing a circle around the new text, or by writing
the text in by hand. The text being struck through or added is shown in
the marked-up CTS and ISTS pages in Enclosures 2 (CTS pages) and 5
(ISTS and ISTS Bases pages) for each ITS section attachment to the
application. Another convention of the common methodology is that the
technical justifications for the less restrictive changes are included
in the NHSCs.
The proposed changes can be grouped into the following four
categories: relocated requirements, administrative changes, less
restrictive changes involving deletion of requirements, and more
restrictive changes. These categories are as follows:
1. Relocated requirements (i.e., the licensee's LG or R changes)
are items which are in the CTS but do not meet the criteria set forth
in the Final Policy Statement. The Final Policy Statement establishes a
specific set of objective criteria for determining which regulatory
requirements and operating restrictions should be included in the TS.
Relocation of requirements to documents with an established control
program, controlled by the regulations or the TS, allows the TS to be
reserved only for those conditions or limitations upon reactor
operation which are necessary to obviate the possibility of an abnormal
situation or event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public
health and safety, thereby focusing the scope of the TS. In general,
the proposed relocation of items from the CTS to the Updated Safety
Analysis Report (USAR), appropriate plant-specific programs, station
procedures, or ITS Bases follows the guidance of NUREG-1431. Once these
items have been relocated to other licensee-controlled documents, the
licensee may revise them under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 or other
NRC-approved control mechanisms, which provide appropriate procedural
means to control changes by the licensee.
2. Administrative changes (i.e., the licensee's A changes) involve
the reformatting and rewording of requirements, consistent with the
style of the ISTS in NUREG-1431, to make the TS more readily
understandable to station operators and other users. These changes are
purely editorial in nature, or involve the movement or reformatting of
requirements without affecting the technical content. Application of a
standardized format and style will also help ensure consistency is
achieved among specifications in the TS. During this reformatting and
rewording process, no technical changes (either actual or
interpretational) to the TS will be made unless they are identified and
justified.
3. Less restrictive changes and the deletion of requirements
involves portions of the CTS (i.e., the licensee's LS and TR changes)
which (1) provide
[[Page 7216]]
information that is descriptive in nature regarding the equipment,
systems, actions, or surveillances, (2) provide little or no safety
benefit, and (3) place an unnecessary burden on the licensee. This
information is proposed to be deleted from the CTS and, in some
instances, moved to the proposed Bases, USAR, or procedures. The
removal of descriptive information to the Bases of the TS, USAR, or
procedures is permissible because these documents will be controlled
through a process that utilizes 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved
control mechanisms. The relaxations of requirements were the result of
generic NRC actions or other analyses. They will be justified on a
case-by-case basis for the CPSES and described in the safety evaluation
to be issued with the license amendment.
4. More restrictive requirements (i.e., the licensee's M changes)
are proposed to be implemented in same areas to impose more stringent
requirements that are in the CTS. These more restrictive requirements
are being imposed to be consistent with the ISTS. Such changes have
been made after ensuring the previously evaluated safety analysis for
the CPSES was not affected. Also, other more restrictive technical
changes have been made to achieve consistency, correct discrepancies,
and remove ambiguities from the TS. Examples of more restrictive
requirements include: placing a Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO)
on station equipment which is not required by the CTS to be operable;
more restrictive requirements to restore inoperable equipment; and more
restrictive surveillance requirements.
There are nineteen other proposed changes to the CTS that may be
included in the proposed amendment to convert the CTS to the ITS. These
are beyond-scope issues (BSIs) changes in that they are changes to both
the CTS and the ISTS. For the CPSES, these are the following:
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 above five BSIs are given in the licensee's application. The
remaining fourteen BSIs may have been revised by the licensee's
responses to the NRC requests for additional information (RAIs). The
format for the fourteen BSIs listed below is 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 purposed 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 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
[[Page 7217]]
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.''
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed
conversion of the CTS to the ITS for CPSES, including the beyond-scope
issues discussed above. Changes which are administrative in nature have
been found to have no effect on the technical content of the TS. The
increased clarity and understanding these changes bring to the TS are
expected to improve the operators control of CPSES in normal and
accident conditions.
Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the requirements themselves.
Future changes to these requirements may then be made by the licensee
under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control mechanisms which will
ensure continued maintenance of adequate requirements. All such
relocations have been found consistent with the guidelines of NUREG-
1431 and the Commission's Final Policy Statement.
Changes involving more restrictive requirements have been found to
enhance station safety.
Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee,
their removal from the TS was justified. In most cases, relaxations
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during
discussions with the OG, and found to be acceptable for the station.
Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 have been reviewed by the
NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
In summary, the proposed revisions to the TS were found to provide
control of station operations such that reasonable assurance will be
provided that the health and safety of the public will be adequately
protected.
The proposed actions will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no
significant increase in the occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact.
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for CPSES.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on January 26, 1999, the
staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Arthur Tate of the
Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated May 15, 1997, as supplemented by the
eleven letters in 1998 dated June 26, August 5, August 28, September
24, October 21, October 23, November 24 (two letters), December 11,
December 17, December 18, and three letters in 1999 dated February 3,
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 8th day of February 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John N. Hannon,
Director, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects--III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-3496 Filed 2-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
