[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24208]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 30, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]
Texas Utilities Electric Company; 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-87 and NPF-89, for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
(CPSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Somervell County, Texas, operated by
Texas Utilities Electric Company (the licensee).
The proposed amendment would change the technical specifications to
allow a one-time extension of emergency diesel generator and related
surveillance testing from 18 to 24 months. These changes apply to Unit
2 only
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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
These are a one-time extensions. The proposed changes only
extend the surveillance test intervals and do not alter the function
or operation of the equipment and are consistent with the philosophy
of Generic Letter (GL) 91-04. The surveillances relate to mitigation
features and have no impact on probability of an accident. The only
impact on consequences would result from the component or system
reliability. The reliability of the affected systems and components
is not being affected since the same testing will be performed but
with a one-time extended test interval.
Many features are tested more frequently by other surveillances
and the ESF [emergency safety features] actuation surveillances
(response time tests) have historically been successful, therefore,
any increase in probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident would be insignificant.
2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated
accident.
These are one-time extensions. No new accident scenarios are
being introduced because neither the testing nor the methodology
itself are been affected. Only the interval between testing is being
changed consistent with the intent of GL 91-04.
3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
These are one-time extensions. Margin of safety is not
significantly affected because no test functions are being omitted
and many attributes of the systems will continue to be verified in
other surveillance tests. The increased time between surveillances,
which could result in a slight decrease in assumed equipment
reliability, is mitigated by the facts that many features are tested
more frequently by other surveillances and by the relatively short
duration of the extension. In addition, minimizing train outages
during refueling outages and using demonstrated test procedures
reduces the risk of events occurring during the outage and improves
safety. Overall, because the potential impact on equipment
reliability is small and because of the reduced shutdown risks, this
license amendment request does not involve a significant reduction
in margin of safety but potentially increases 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to Room 6D22, 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By October 31, 1994, 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 20555 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, Texas 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 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, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the
above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the
following message addressed to William D. Beckner, Director, Project
Directorate IV-1: petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition
was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this
Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to
the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and to George L. Edgar, Esq., Newman and
Holtzinger, 1615 L Street, NW., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20336,
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 September 19, 1994, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 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, Texas 76019.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Thomas A. Bergman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-24208 Filed 9-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
