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

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