ML20204C519

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to License NPF-87 & NPF-89 & Opportunity for Hearing.Amend Would Represent Full Conversion from Current TS

ML20204C519
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	01/21/1999
From:	Polich T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20204C527	List: ML20204C519
References
NUDOCS 9903230134
Download: ML20204C519 (12)

Text

.

7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TU ELECTRIC DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50-446 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LIQENSE 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 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 Reaister (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 (BS!s) to the improved Technical Specifications (ITS) conversion, needs to be expanded (add fourteen new BSis) and revised (cielete two previous BSis) to include a total of nineteen BSis and requires re-notice in the Federal Reaister. This notiae 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, Ochber 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," Revisien 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 9903230134 990121 PDR ADOCK 05000445 P

PDR

2 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 Reactom (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 Reaister 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. 50483); 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 i

includes the convention that, if the words in an 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 Sa," Mark Up of NUREG-1431 Specifications"; and Enclosure 5b," Mark-Up of NUREG-1431 Bases, for each of the 14 separats ITS sections that were submitted with the licensee' application. For each of the 14 ITS sections, there is also the following: Enclosure 1, the crosc reference ^able, 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

3 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 me 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 requirema ts and other changes not affecting i

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 assuined 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

,mi-m m

r--

s 4

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 it entitled," General Description and Assessment." The affected 4

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 v6riables will be relocated from the TS to administratively controlled documents such as the quality assurance program, the final safety analysis report (FSAR), th'a ITS BASES, the Technical Ren,uirements 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 60,59. These proposed changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements.

More restric /e changes are those involving more stringent requirements compared to r

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 of process variables, structures, erstems, 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 com::luded i

that retaining the more restrictive requh ment is desirable to ensure stafe operation of the facility because of specific design features of the plant.

5 Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are relaxed or eliminated, or j

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 a

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 justNation provided by the licensee.

i These administrative, relocated, more restrictive, and lesn, restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in operations that will alter assumptions relative to mit gation of an analyzed accident or transient event.

In addition to the proposed changes solely invoMng the conversion, there are also i

changes proposed that are differences to thw 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 coaversion, however there are fourteen additional BSis. The additional beyond-scops !nues (BSls) are discussed in the licensee's response to requests for additional information (RAls) from the NRC staff. These proposed BSis to the iTS conversion are as folkws:

\\

6 ITS 3.1.7, a new action added for more than one digital rod position indictator per group inoperable.

2. ITS surveillance requirement (SR) 3.2.1.2, frequency, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for verifying the

)

axial heat flux hot channel factor is within limit after achieving equilibrium conditione.

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 poo! level from that above top of 2

fuel stored in racks to that above the top of racks.

5. !TS 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 flywheelinspection 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 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> 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 m

A.'

7 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 03.3-107, response letter dated November 24, i

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 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for channel restoration or t hanghs 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 psitive reactivity additions and a power reduction below P-6 within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, 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 05.2-1, response letter dated September 24,1998, a new administrative change added to the applic& tion. 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 purposed 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 o '.2-1, response letter dated September 24, 1998, a new administrative chance 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.

_= - -.

~

l 1

12. Change 2-22-A (ITS 5.0), question 05.2-1 onse letter dated September 24, 1

1998, a new administrative change added to the application. The Radioactive Effluents Controls Program woulci 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 l

applic:'Ne to these activities.

1

13. Change 3-11-A (ITS 5.0), question 05.2-1, 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 QS.2-1, response letter dated September 24, l

l 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 relief valves (PORVs) and safety valves on the reactor coolant system would be deleted. This is based on NRC Generic Letter 1

97-02 which reduced requirements for submitting such information to the NRC and did not i

'nclude these valves for information to be submitted.

l

15. Change 3.19-A (ITS 5.0), question 05.2-1, 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 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 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

._._.___.-_.___._..m.

9 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 Q3.4.114, 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.

1

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 January 26,1999, 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.

u

4 10 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 approp:iate 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 exp!ain 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.

l

..a

.jm*

gehs e we,e

.weW

.ai._awh

4

.A.

..,=.-

e-a s-_&

--, +-,

A4+

'A 4

a-.-

n--

"n e+

m m

J A,4-

.s4 1

}

11 Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the 1

l 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 s

also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is l

aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.

Petitioner must provide suffir ant 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 whbh 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

_... _.. ~ _ _.__ _._ _ _ _.__ _ _

12 Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius,1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, attomey 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)(l)-(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, Govemment 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 8f TimothyJ. Polich, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects Ill/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

)

1 1

j_

__