[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58794-58796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29265]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456, and STN 50-457]
Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-37 and NPF-66, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the
licensee) for operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
Ogle County, Illinois and Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-72 and
NPF-77, issued to ComEd for operation of Braidwood Station, Units 1 and
2, located in Will County, Illinois.
This notification addresses the beyond scope bracketed items
identified in the requested amendments dated December 13, 1996. The
proposed amendments would revise current Technical Specifications (CTS)
of each unit to conform with NUREG-1431, Revision 1, ``Standard
Technical Specifications--Westinghouse Plants.'' The following
descriptions and proposed no significant hazard analyses cover only
those beyond scope bracketed changes. Associated with each change are
administrative/editorial changes such that the new or revised
requirements would fit the format of NUREG-1431.
1. CTS Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) 3.2.2 ensures
compliance with FQ fuel design limits by a bounding analysis
that is verified in the plant by monitoring a height dependent radial
peaking factor FXY(Z). The CTS denotes associated LCOs,
Actions, and Surveillance Requirements (SRs) for the FXY(Z)
methodology. Improved Technical Specification (ITS) LCO 3.2.1 denotes
associated LCOs, Actions, and SRs for a method based on an equilibrium
FQ(Z) surveillance (FQ(Z)W(Z) methodology). The
proposed methodology change provides more available margin to the
FQ(Z) limit than is currently available with the
FXY(Z) surveillance methodology. The FXY(Z)
methodology is based on a 1 dimension-2 dimension synthesis of data
whereas the FQ(Z)W(Z) methodology is a more advanced 3
dimension calculation. ComEd proposes to replace the FXY(Z)
method by the FQ(Z)W(Z) method. NUREG-1431 provides the
option for either the FXY(Z) methodology or the
FQ(Z)W(Z) methodology. The revised
[[Page 58795]]
requirement will be stated as ITS LCO 3.2.1.
2. This beyond scope change applies to Braidwood Station only. CTS
SR 4.7.7.d.3 confirms the ability of both trains of the Nonaccessible
Area Exhaust Filter Plenum Ventilation System to maintain Emergency
Core Cooling System (ECCS) equipment rooms at -0.25 inches (water
gauge) relative to the outside atmosphere while operating at a
specified flow rate per train and a specified flow rate per bank. ComEd
proposes to eliminate the specified bank flow rates. The SR verifies
the integrity of the ECCS pump room areas. The ability of the
Nonaccessible Area Exhaust Filter Plenum Ventilation System to maintain
the ECCS pump room areas at a negative pressure, with respect to
potentially uncontaminated adjacent area, is periodically tested to
verify proper functioning of the Nonaccessible Area Exhaust Filter
Plenum Ventilation System. Verification of the train flow rates is
sufficient to satisfy this SR. In addition, several of the CTS 4.7.7
SRs include operating the system at a specified flow rate per train and
a specified flow rate per bank. The specified train and bank flow rates
are included in ITS Specification 5.5.11.a and 5.5.11.b for
surveillances performed after structural maintenance on the high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) or charcoal adsorber housings. ITS
Specifications 5.5.11.a and 5.5.11.b include only train flow rates for
other periodic surveillances. The flow distribution per train (bank
flow) is achieved by permanently welded baffle plates and was tested
during initial construction and periodically as required by the CTS.
These changes were permitted at Byron Station as described in NRC
safety evaluation (SE) dated October 22, 1993. The revised requirements
will be stated as ITS 3.7.12 and ITS 5.5.11.
3. CTS SR 4.8.1.1.2.a.5, 4.8.1.1.2.f.3, and 4.8.1.1.2.f.7 include
requirements associated with loading the diesel generator (DG) to
greater than or equal to the continuous rating of the DGs (5500 kW).
Consistent with NUREG-1431, ComEd proposes to modify these SRs to
include a 90 percent to 100 percent of the continuous rating of the DGs
load band (4950 kW to 5500 kW). These revised requirements will be
stated as ITS SR 3.8.1.3 (31 day, 60 minute run), ITS SR 3.8.1.10 (full
load reject), and ITS SR 3.8.1.14 (24 hour run). In addition, the Note
contained in ITS SR 3.8.1.15 (hot restart) includes this load band.
Regulatory Guide 1.9, Revision 3, recommends that these tests be
conducted at 90 percent to 100 percent of the DG continuous rating. The
maximum expected accident load for the worst case DG is 5166 kW (Byron
DG 1A--during the first 30 minutes). The footnotes associated with CTS
SR 4.8.1.1.2.f.7 include an allowance to load the DG for the first 2-
hours of the 24 hour test within a load band of +0 kW, -150 kW of the
2-hour rating of the DG (6050 kW). Consistent with NUREG-1431, ComEd
proposes to modify this load band in ITS SR 3.8.1.12 to include a 105
percent to 110 percent of the DG continuous rating (5775 kW-6050 kW)
load band. The 100 percent corresponds to the 2-hour rating, while the
105 percent corresponds to -275 kW from the 2-hour rating. In summary,
these revised requirements will be stated as ITS 3.8.1.3, 3.8.1.10,
3.8.1.14, and 3.8.1.15.
4. Consistent with plant specific analyses and current procedural
controls, ComEd proposes to raise the minimum steady state voltage
acceptance criterion for CTS SR 4.8.1.1.2.a.4, 4.8.1.1.2.f.2,
4.8.1.1.2.f.4.b, 4.8.1.1.2.f.5, and 4.8.1.1.2.f.6.b to 3950 volts. This
minimum steady state value ensures that certain low voltage sensitive
components can operate properly. This revised requirement will be
stated as ITS SRs 3.8.1.2, 3.8.1.7, 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.11, 3.8.1.12,
3.8.1.15, and 3.8.1.19.
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.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the requested
amendments involve 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 amendments 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 for each of the above
proposed changes. The NRC staff has reviewed ComEd's analyses against
the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The staff's analysis is presented
below.
1. Will the changes involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
In all of the changes described above the answer is ``no.'' The
proposed changes will not affect the safety function of the subject
systems. There will be no direct effect on the design or operation of
any plant structures, systems, or components. No previously analyzed
accidents were initiated by the functions of these systems, and the
systems will continue to perform their functions in mitigating
consequences of previously analyzed accidents. Therefore, the proposed
changes will have no impact of the consequences of any previously
evaluated accidents.
2. Will the changes create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
In all of the changes described above, the answer is ``no.'' The
proposed changes would not lead to any design or operating procedure
change. Hence, no new equipment failure modes or accidents from those
previously evaluated will be created.
3. Will the changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety?
In all of the changes described above, the answer is ``no.'' Margin
of safety is associated with confidence in the design and operation of
the plant. The proposed changes to the CTS do not involve any change to
plant design, operation, or analysis. Thus, the margin of safety
previously analyzed and evaluated is maintained.
Based on the analysis, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied for each of the proposed changes. Therefore,
the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments
involve 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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration
of the 30-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 and provide for opportunity
[[Page 58796]]
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 December 2, 1998, 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: for Byron, the Byron Public Library District,
109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron, Illinois 61010; for Braidwood,
the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington,
Illinois 60481. 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 Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley
and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60603, attorney
for ComEd.
Non-timely 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 December 13, 1996, 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: for Byron, the Byron Public Library
District, 109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron, Illinois 61010; for
Braidwood, the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street,
Wilmington, Illinois 60481.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of October 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ramin R. Assa,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-29265 Filed 10-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
