[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61272-61274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29135]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-265]
Commonwealth Edison Company and Midamerican Energy 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos.
DRP-19, DRP-25, DRP-29, and DRP-30 issued to Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd, the licensee) for operation of the Dresden Nuclear
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy County, Illinois and
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Dixon
County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would close out additional open items
identified in the NRC staff's review of the upgrade of the Dresden and
Quad Cities Technical Specifications (TS) to the Standard Technical
Specifications (STS) contained in NUREG-0123. The Technical
Specification Upgrade Program (TSUP) is not a complete adaption of the
STS. The TS upgrade focuses on (1) integrating additional information
such as equipment operability requirements during shutdown conditions,
(2) clarifying requirements such as limiting conditions for operation
and action statements utilizing STS terminology, (3) deleting
superseded requirements and modifications to the TS based on the
licensee's responses to Generic Letter (GL), and (4) relocating
specific items to more appropriate TS locations. The November 14, 1995,
application proposed to close out all open items identified during the
NRC's review as noted in previous NRC staff Safety Evaluations for
previously provided submittals regarding the TSUP project.
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:
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
because:
In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of
current requirements to a more generic format, or the addition of
requirements which are based on the current safety analysis.
Implementation of these changes will provide increased reliability
of equipment assumed to operate in the current safety analysis, or
provide continued assurance that specified parameters remain within
their acceptance limits, and as such, will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated
accident.
Some of the proposed changes represent minor curtailments of the
current requirements which are based on generic guidance or
previously approved provisions for other stations. The proposed
amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Station's Technical
Specifications are based on STS guidelines or later operating BWR
plants' NRC accepted changes. Any deviations from STS requirements
do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any
previously evaluated accidents for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the current safety
analyses and has been previously determined to represent sufficient
requirements for the assurance and reliability of equipment assumed
to operate in the safety analysis, or provide continued assurance
that specified parameters remain within their acceptance limits. As
such, these changes will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
The associated systems related to this proposed amendment are
not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence
for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations; therefore, the probability of
any accident previously evaluated is not increased by the proposed
amendment. In addition, the proposed surveillance requirements for
the proposed amendments to these systems are generally more
prescriptive than the current requirements specified within the
Technical Specifications. The additional surveillance requirements
improve the reliability and availability of all affected systems and
therefore, reduce the consequences of any accident previously
evaluated as the probability of the systems related to the TSUP open
items outlined within the proposed Technical Specifications
performing their intended function is increased by the additional
surveillances.
The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because:
In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of
current requirements to a more generic format, the addition of
requirements which are based on the current safety analysis, and
some minor curtailments of the current requirements which are based
on generic guidance or previously approved provisions for other
stations. These changes do not involve revisions to the design of
the station. Some of the changes may involve revision in the
operation of the station; however, these provide additional
restrictions which are in accordance with the current safety
analysis, or are to provide for additional testing or surveillances
which will not introduce new failure mechanisms beyond those already
considered in the current safety analyses.
The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Station's
Technical Specification is based on STS guidelines or later
operating BWR plants' NRC accepted changes. The proposed amendment
has been reviewed for acceptability at the Dresden and Quad Cities
Nuclear Power Stations considering similarity of system or component
design versus the STS or later operating BWRs.
Any deviations from STS requirements do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously
evaluated for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. No new modes of
operation are introduced by the proposed changes. Surveillance
requirements are changed to reflect improvements in technique,
frequency of performance or operating experience at later plants.
Proposed changes to action statements in many places add
requirements that are not in the present technical specifications.
The proposed changes maintain at least the present level of
operability. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
previously evaluated.
The associated systems related to this proposed amendment are
not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence
for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. In addition, the proposed
surveillance requirements for affected systems associated with the
TSUP open items are generally more prescriptive than the current
requirements specified within the Technical Specifications;
therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety because:
In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of
current
[[Page 61273]]
requirements to a more generic format, the addition of requirements
which are based on the current safety analysis, and some minor
curtailments of the current requirements which are based on generic
guidance or previously approved provisions for other stations. Some
of the latter individual items may introduce minor reductions in the
margin of safety when compared to the current requirements. However,
other individual changes are the adoption of new requirements which
will provide significant enhancement of the reliability of the
equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis, or provide
enhanced assurance that specified parameters remain within their
acceptance limits. These enhancements compensate for the individual
minor reductions, such that taken together, the proposed changes
will not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications
implements present requirements, or the intent of present
requirements in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the STS.
Any deviations from STS requirements do not significantly reduce the
margin of safety for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. The proposed
changes are intended to improve readability, usability, and the
understanding of technical specification requirements while
maintaining acceptable levels of safe operation. The proposed
changes have been evaluated and found to be acceptable for use at
Dresden or Quad Cities based on system design, safety analysis
requirements and operational performance. Since the proposed changes
are based on NRC accepted provisions at other operating plants that
are applicable at Dresden or Quad Cities and maintain necessary
levels of system or component reliability, the proposed changes do
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Stations will
not reduce the availability of systems associated with the TSUP open
items when required to mitigate accident conditions; 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 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to Room 6D22, 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 28, 1995, 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 at the local public
document rooms located at the Morris Area Public Library District, 604
Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for the Dresden Station and Dixon
Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad Cities
Station. 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
[[Page 61274]]
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, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following
message addressed to Robert A. Capra: petitioner's name and telephone
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Michael I. Miller,
Esquire; Sidley and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois
60603, 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 amendment dated November 14, 1995, 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 rooms located at the Morris Area Public Library
District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for the Dresden Station
and Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad
Cities Station.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Pulsifer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-29135 Filed 11-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
