[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 113 (Monday, June 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31881-31882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15020]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-445 and 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 No.
NPF-87 and Facility Operating License No. NPF-89 issued to Texas
Utilities Electric Company (the licensee, or TU), for operation of the
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES), Units 1 and 2,
respectively, located in Somervell County, Texas.
The proposed amendments would add a footnote to Technical
Specification (TS) 4.8.2.1e, ``D.C. Sources--Operating,'' which would,
on a one-time basis for Unit 1 Battery BT1ED2, allow the licensee to
substitute a performance discharge test ``* * * in lieu of the battery
service test required by Specification 4.8.2.1d, twice within a 60
month interval.'' The footnote further states that ``[t]his one time
exception expires prior to entry into MODE 4 following the next Unit 1
outage of sufficient duration to perform a service test.'' The proposed
amendments would also add a footnote to the comparable Improved TS
(ITS) that were issued by the NRC staff as License Amendments 64 and
64, to the CPSES, Units 1 and 2, Facility Operating Licenses on
February 26, 1999, but not as yet implemented by the licensee. In this
regard, ITS Surveillance Requirement 3.8.4.7 would receive the same
footnote added to TS 4.8.2.1e with a minor grammatical change.
In the licensee's letter dated May 28, 1999, the licensee explained
the exigent circumstances associated with its May 27, 1999,
application. The licensee noted that the normal 30-day Federal Register
notice period could not be utilized because the application results
from the issuance of an enforcement discretion. The NRC responded to
the licensee's May 26, 1999, request for an enforcement discretion by
issuing a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on June 2, 1999. The
subject NOED indicated that the NRC staff plans to complete its review
and issue the license amendments within 4 weeks of the date of the
NOED, which is less time than permitted by the normal 30-day Federal
Register notice period.
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.
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?
Crediting the battery performance discharge test in lieu of the
required service test will not impact the ability of the battery to
perform its safety functions. Therefore, this change will not
increase 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?
Crediting the performance discharge test in lieu of the required
service test will not create a new or different kind of accident.
3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Crediting the performance discharge test in lieu of the required
service test does not create any new failure scenarios and no margin
is expected to be reduced. As such, there is no reduction in any
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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration
of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is
that the amendments involve 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's 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 July 14, 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.
[[Page 31882]]
Box 19497, Arlington, Texas. 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
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendments.
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, 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 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 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 amendments dated May 27, 1999, as supplement by letter
dated May 28, 1999, 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, Texas.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of June 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack N. Donohew,
Acting Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning,
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-15020 Filed 6-11-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P