[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21032-21034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9752]



[[Page 21032]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-80 and DPR-82 issued to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 
2, located in San Luis Obispo County, California.
    The proposed amendment would revise several sections of the 
improved Technical Specification (ITS) to correct 20 editorial errors 
made in either (1) The application dated June 2, 1997 (and supplemental 
letters), for the ITS, or (2) the certified copy of the ITS that was 
submitted in the licensee's letters of May 19 and 27, 1999. The 
proposed amendment would also revise 11 instances of incorrect 
incorporation of the current Technical Specifications (CTS) into the 
ITS. The ITS were issued as License Amendments 135 and 135 dated May 
28, 1999, and will be implemented by the licensee to replace the CTS by 
May 31, 2000.
    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 change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed elimination of the channel calibration for the 
turbine stop valve position switches will not change the probability 
or consequences of an accident previously evaluated since they are 
not subject to drift. Since the limit switches do not drift and 
therefore do not have a setpoint that can potentially change, the 
remaining verification of the trip actuation device operational test 
(TADOT) will provide all necessary assurances of Operability.
    The proposed elimination of the TADOT for the auto stop oil 
pressure will not change the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated since the TADOT verifies the same 
requirements as the required channel calibration.
    The proposed elimination of the requirement to calibrate the 
neutron wide range detectors will not change the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated since they are only 
used to monitor power following an accident. They provide no 
automatic control or actuation functions. Since an accident must 
first occur before these channels are used, this change can not 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident. Further, 
the necessary elements of the calibration for the channel and the 
detector will be accomplished through cross correlation similar to 
the power range detectors.
    The remaining proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
They correct errors made while incorporating the current Technical 
Specifications (CTS) into the improved Technical Specifications 
(ITS), or errors made while creating the final copy of the ITS from 
the NRC reviewed mark-up of NUREG-1431. The proposed change of the 
Shift Supervisor title to Shift Manager is administrative since it 
does not decrease the responsibilities of the individual.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety 
function. The proposed changes are administrative.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed elimination of the calibration for the turbine stop 
valve position switches will not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident since they are not subject to drift. The 
remaining verification of the TADOT will provide all necessary 
assurances of operability.
    The proposed elimination of the TADOT for the auto stop oil 
pressure will not create the possibility of a new or different kind 
of accident since this test will not evaluate anything not already 
verified by the required channel calibration.
    The proposed elimination of the requirement to calibrate the 
neutron wide range detectors will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident since they are only used to 
monitor power following an accident. They provide no automatic 
control or actuation functions. Since an accident must first occur 
before these channels are used, this change can not cause a new or 
different type of an accident. Further, the necessary elements of 
the calibration for the channel and the detector will be 
accomplished through cross correlation similar to the power range 
detectors.
    The remaining proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
They correct errors made while incorporating the CTS into the ITS, 
or errors made while creating the final copy of the ITS from the NRC 
reviewed mark-up of NUREG-1431. The proposed change of the Shift 
Supervisor title to Shift Manager is administrative since it does 
not decrease the responsibilities of the individual.
    There are no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the 
method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety 
function. The changes are administrative in nature so there are no 
new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or 
limiting single failures are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The proposed elimination of the calibration for the turbine stop 
valve position switches will not reduce the margin of safety since 
they are not subject to drift. The remaining verification of the 
TADOT will provide all necessary assurances of operability.
    The proposed elimination of the TADOT for the auto stop oil 
pressure will not reduce the margin of safety since this test will 
not evaluate anything not already verified by the channel 
calibration.
    The proposed elimination of the requirement to calibrate the 
neutron wide range detectors will not reduce the margin of safety 
since they are only used to monitor power following an accident. 
They provide no automatic control or actuation functions. Since an 
accident must first occur before these channels are used, this 
change can not decrease the margin of safety. Further the necessary 
elements of the calibration for the channel and the detectors will 
be accomplished through cross correlation similar to the power range 
detectors.
    The remaining proposed changes are administrative in nature. 
They correct errors made while incorporating the CTS into the ITS, 
or errors made while creating the final copy of the ITS from the NRC 
reviewed mark-up of NUREG-1431. The proposed change of the Shift 
Supervisor title to Shift Manager is administrative since it does 
not decrease the responsibilities of the individual.
    The proposed changes do not affect the acceptance criteria for 
any analyzed event. There will be no effect on the manner in which 
safety limits or limiting safety system settings are determined nor 
will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure 
the accomplishment of protection functions.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three

[[Page 21033]]

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 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 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 May 19, 2000, 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, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 20555-0001, 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 Christopher J. Warner, Esq., Pacific 
Gas and Electric Company, P. O. Box 7442, San Francisco, California 
94210, 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 21034]]

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 March 16, 2000, as supplemented by 
letter dated April 11, 2000, which are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Steven D. Bloom,
Project Manager, Section #2, Project Directorate IV and 
Decommissioning, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-9752 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P