[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11458-11460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5944]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
Texas Utilities Electric; 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, (TU
Electric, the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam
Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas.
The proposed amendment would be a temporary change to the Technical
Specifications to remove the requirement to demonstrate the load
shedding feature of MCC XEB4-3 as part of Surveillance Requirements
(SRs) 4.8.1.1.2f.4)(a) and 4.8.1.1.2f.6)(a) until the plant startup
subsequent to the next refueling outage or until the next outage
greater than 24 hours in duration for each respective unit. This
temporary change is requested as a result of the failure to confirm the
load shedding feature of MCC XEB4-3 during the performance of these SRs
for the Unit 1 and Unit 2 train B diesel generators (DGs). This was
reported promptly to the NRC at the time of discovery and prompt action
to remedy the situation was taken.
The licensee requested a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) by
letter dated February 20, 1998. The NRC orally issued the NOED at 4:49
pm EST on February 20, 1998, to allow the facility to continue
operation while the TS is processed. Pursuant to the NRC's policy
regarding exercise of discretion for an operating facility, set out in
Section VII.c, of the ``General Statement of Policy and Procedures for
NRC Enforcement Actions'' (Enforcement Policy), NUREG-1600, the letter
documenting the issuance of the NOED was dated February 24, 1998. The
NOED was to be effective for the period of time it takes the NRC staff
to process the proposed change to the TSs on an exigent bases.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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?
The only potential impact of operating without having
demonstrated the load shedding feature of MCC XEB4-3 is the
potential that the train B DG for either CPSES Unit 1 or Unit 2 will
not be able to perform its safety function following a postulated
accident or event. TU Electric has evaluated the potential load
added to the DGs if this bus does not shed and has concluded that
the DGs remain fully capable of performing their safety function. As
a result, there is no 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 kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
[[Page 11459]]
Operation without having tested the load shedding feature of bus
XEB4-3 does not effect the operation or design of the Units and
therefore cannot 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?
Because the diesel generators remain fully capable of performing
their safety functions without having demonstrated the load shedding
feature of MCC XEB4-3, there is no significant 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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 April 8, 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 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.
If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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, may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman
[[Page 11460]]
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 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 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 February 25, 1998, 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 3rd day of March 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. 98-5944 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
