TU Electric; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446]

TU Electric; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to

Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

[[Page 4149]]

considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.

NPF-87 and 89, issued to the TU Electric (TUE or the licensee), for

operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2

(CPSES), located in Somervell County, Texas.

The initial notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to

facility operating license and opportunity for hearing was originally

published in the Federal Register (63 FR 58074) on October 29, 1998.

The information included in the supplemental letters indicates the

original notice, that included seven proposed beyond-scope issues

(BSIs) to the Improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs

to be expanded (add fourteen new BSIs) and revised (delete two previous

BSIs) to include a total of nineteen BSIs and requires re-notice in the

Federal Register. This notice supercedes the previous notice.

The proposed amendment, requested by the licensee in a letter dated

May 15, 1997, as supplemented by letters dated June 26, August 5,

August 28, September 24, October 21, October 23, November 24, December

11, December 17 and December 18, 1998, would represent a full

conversion from the current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of

ITS based on NUREG-1431, ``Standard Technical Specifications,

Westinghouse Plants,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. NUREG-1431 has

been developed by the Commission's staff through working groups

composed of both NRC staff members and industry representatives, and

has been endorsed by the staff as part of an industry-wide initiative

to standardize and improve the Technical Specifications (TSs) for

nuclear power plants. As part of this submittal, the licensee has

applied the criteria contained in the Commission's ``Final Policy

Statement on Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power

Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' published in the Federal Register

on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to the CTS, and, using NUREG-1431 as a

basis, proposed an ITS for CPSES. The criteria in the Final Policy

Statement were subsequently added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical

Specifications,'' in a rule change that was published in the Federal

Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953) and became effective on August

18, 1995.

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). 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 includes the

convention that, if the words in a CTS specification are not the same

as the words in the ITS specification but they mean the same or have

the same requirements as the words in the ITS specification, the

licensees do not indicate or describe a change to the CTS.

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 14 ITS sections, there is also

the following: Enclosure 1, the cross reference table, sorted by CTS

and ITS Specifications; Enclosure 3, 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 applies to;

Enclosure 4, 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; and

Enclosure 6, 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 applies to.

Another convention of the common methodology is that the technical

justifications for the less restrictive changes are included in the

NHSCs.

The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into

four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as

administrative changes, relocated changes, more restrictive changes and

less restrictive changes.

Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring,

renumbering, rewording, interpretation and complex rearranging of

requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or

substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting,

renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1431

and does not involve technical changes to the existing TSs. The

proposed changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc.,

for NUREG-1431 bracketed information (information that must be supplied

on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant),

(b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc., and (c)

changing NUREG-1431 section wording to conform to existing licensee

practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact

initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or

transient events.

Relocated changes are those involving relocation of requirements

and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables

that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the TSs. Relocated

changes are those current TSs requirements that do not satisfy or fall

within any of the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy

statement and may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled

documents.

The licensee's application of the screening criteria is described

in Attachment 2 to its May 15, 1997, submittal, which is entitled,

``General Description and Assessment.'' The affected structures,

systems, components or variables are not assumed to be initiators of

analyzed events and are not assumed to mitigate accident or transient

events. The requirements and surveillances for these affected

structures, systems, components, or variables will be relocated from

the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the quality

assurance program, the final safety analysis report (FSAR), the ITS

BASES, the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) that is incorporated by

reference in the FSAR, the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the

Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST)

Program, or other licensee-controlled documents. Changes made to these

documents will be made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 or other appropriate

control mechanisms, and may be made without prior NRC review and

approval. In addition the affected structures, systems, components, or

variables are addressed in existing surveillance procedures that are

also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These proposed changes will not impose or

eliminate any requirements.

More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent

requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These

more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter

assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient

event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation

[[Page 4150]]

of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in

the safety analyses. For each requirement in the CTS that is more

restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1431 that the

licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, they have provided an

explanation of why they have concluded that retaining the more

restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the

facility because of specific design features of the plant.

Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are

relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is

provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are

justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to

provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TSs may be

appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to

individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a)

generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from

technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution

of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved Standard Technical

Specifications. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1431 were

reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they are

consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. The

licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific design

basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical basis for

the model requirements in NUREG-1431, thus providing a basis for these

revised TS, or if relaxation of the requirements in the current TS is

warranted based on the justification provided by the licensee.

These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and less

restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in

operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an

analyzed accident or transient event.

In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the

conversion, there are also changes proposed that are differences to the

requirements in both the CTS and the Improved Standard Technical

Specifications (NUREG-1431). The first five BSIs were included in the

previous (superceded notice) and still apply to the conversion, however

there are fourteen additional BSIs. The additional beyond-scope issues

(BSIs) are discussed in the licensee's response to requests for

additional information (RAIs) from the NRC staff. These proposed BSIs

to the ITS conversion are as follows:

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 fourteen additional BSIs are listed below with 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 proposed 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

[[Page 4151]]

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 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.''

Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission

will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.

By February 28, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a hearing

with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility

operating licenses 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.

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 Mr. George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan,

Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW, 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

[[Page 4152]]

should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(I)-(v) and 2.714(d).

If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may

issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior

to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further

notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant

hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.

For further details with respect to this action, see the

application for amendment dated March 27, 1997, 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 21st day of January 1999.

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. 99-1847 Filed 1-26-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P