[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14735-14737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8005]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-237]
Commonwealth Edison 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 No.
DPR-19, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee),
for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, located in
Grundy County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would reflect a change in the Dresden, Unit
2, minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) Safety Limit and revise
footnotes in Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.3, to allow the
use of Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) ATRIUM-9B fuel.
This request for amendment was submitted under exigent
circumstances to support Dresden, Unit 2, Cycle 16, operation which is
scheduled to begin on April 12, 1998. The licensee had submitted an
application for TS amendments on August 29, 1997, (published on January
14, 1998 at 63 FR 227) citing SPC Topical for Revised ANFB Correlation
Uncertainty, ANF-1125(P), Supplement 1, Appendix D, to allow the use of
SPC ATRIUM-9B fuel. However, the need for additional information has
delayed the review of this topical report. To ensure that use of
ATRIUM-9B fuel is approved in time for the scheduled Unit 2 startup,
ComEd determined that it would submit this one-time cycle-specific
amendment request proposing an interim conservative approach to
calculating the MCPR Safety Limit. The time necessary for ComEd to
develop this TS request would not allow the normal 30-day period for
public comment to support Dresden, Unit 2, startup on April 12, 1998.
However, should startup on Dresden, Unit 2, be delayed enough to allow
the normal 30-day period for public comment, this amendment will not be
issued until expiration of the normal 30-day period for public comment.
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.
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. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated:
The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The
consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those
consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC
approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal,
transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. This change does
not affect the operability of plant systems, nor does it compromise
any fuel performance limits.
Revision to Cycle Specific Footnotes for Dresden 2 Cycle 16 Operation
With ATRIUM-9B
The revisions to the footnotes in [Technical Specification]
Section 5.3 have no implications for accident analysis or plant
operations. The purpose of the revisions to the footnotes is to
allow operation of Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 with an interim
conservative approach to calculating the MCPR Safety Limit. This is
the same approach that was NRC approved for use for Dresden Unit 3
Cycle 15 and Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15. The Dresden Unit 2 Cycle
16 MCPR Safety Limit was calculated using an interim additive
constant uncertainty. The MCPR Safety Limit is used in the
determination of the cycle's MCPR Operating Limit. The MCPR
Operating Limit ensures that the MCPR Safety Limit is not violated
for any anticipated operational occurrence. This revision does not
affect any plant equipment or processes; therefore, there is no
alteration in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Revision to the MCPR Safety Limit
Changing the MCPR Safety Limit for Dresden Unit 2 from 1.08 to
1.09 will not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated. Additionally, operational MCPR limits will be applied
that will ensure the MCPR Safety Limit is not violated during all
modes of operation and anticipated operational occurrences. Changing
the MCPR Safety Limit will not alter any physical systems or
operating procedures. The Dresden Unit 2 MCPR Safety Limit is set to
1.09, which is a critical power
[[Page 14736]]
ratio value where less than 0.1% of the rods in the core are
expected to experience transition boiling. This application for
amendment does not change the criterion of ensuring that less than
0.1% of the rods in the core are calculated to experience transition
boiling when the core is at the MCPR Safety Limit. Therefore, the
probability or consequences of an accident will not increase.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated:
Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors of
that accident. New accident precursors may be created by
modifications to the plant configuration or changes in allowable
modes of operation. Other than the use of a full reload of ATRIUM-9B
fuel in Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 in Modes 1 and 2, this Technical
Specification submittal does not involve any modifications to the
plant configuration or allowable modes of operation. The operation
with a full reload of ATRIUM-9B was previously approved for Dresden
Unit 3 Cycle 15. The ATRIUM-9B fuel is compatible with the existing
9x9-2 fuel in the Dresden Unit 2 core. No new precursors of an
accident are created and no new or different kinds of accidents are
created. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Revision To Cycle Specific Footnotes for Dresden 2 Cycle 16 Operation
With ATRIUM-9B
The revision to the cycle specific footnotes in Section 5.3 is
necessary to allow operation of Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16. This
revision will not alter any plant systems, equipment or physical
conditions of the site. Revising the footnotes in Section 5.3 allows
operation with a reload of ATRIUM-9B in Modes 1 and 2 for Unit 2
Cycle 16, which has previously been approved for Dresden Unit 3
Cycle 15. This revision is based on the fact that an interim
conservative additive constant uncertainty has been used to
calculate the Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 MCPR Safety Limit. NRC
approval of this interim approach in determining the Dresden Unit 2
Cycle 16 MCPR Safety Limit will ensure that fuel limits are
determined and cycle specific analyses are performed for Dresden
Unit 2 Cycle 16 utilizing NRC approved methods. Therefore, no new or
different kinds of accidents are created from this revision.
Revision to the MCPR Safety Limit
Changing the MCPR Safety Limit will not create the possibility
of a new accident from an accident previously evaluated. This change
will not alter or add any new equipment or change plant modes of
operation. The MCPR Safety Limit is established to ensure that 99.9%
of the rods avoid transition boiling. The new MCPR Safety Limit for
Dresden Unit 2, 1.09, is greater than the current value of 1.08 and
is consistent with MCPR Safety Limit calculations in support of
Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 operation. Therefore, no new accidents are
created that are different from those previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for
the following reasons:
Revision to Cycle Specific Footnotes for Dresden 2 Cycle 16 Operation
With ATRIUM-9B
The results of the analyses for Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 verify
that, with an interim additive constant uncertainty, an MCPR Safety
Limit of 1.09 is supportable with less then 0.1% of the rods
predicted to experience transition boiling. Since there is
sufficient margin to the amount of rods predicted to experience
transition boiling, and a conservative interim approach has been
used to calculate the additive constant uncertainty, removing the
footnotes to enable Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 to operate with ATRIUM-
9B fuel will not reduce the margin of safety.
Revision to the MCPR Safety Limit
Changing the MCPR Safety Limit for Dresden Unit 2 will not
involve any reduction in margin of safety. The MCPR Safety Limit
provides a margin of safety by ensuring that less than 0.1% of the
rods are expected to be in transition boiling if the MCPR Safety
Limit is not violated. The proposed Technical Specification
amendment to change the MCPR Safety Limit to 1.09 supports operation
of Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16. SPC used the ANFB critical power
correlation with an interim ATRIUM-9B additive constant uncertainty
to perform the MCPR Safety Limit calculations.
Because a conservative method is used to apply the ATRIUM-9B
additive constant uncertainty in the MCPR Safety Limit calculation,
a decrease in the margin to safety will not occur due to changing
the MCPR Safety Limit. The revised Dresden Unit 2 MCPR Safety Limit
will ensure the appropriate level of fuel protection. Additionally,
operational limits will be established based on the proposed Dresden
Unit 2 MCPR Safety Limit to ensure that the MCPR Safety Limit is not
violated during all modes of operation including anticipated
operational occurrences. This will ensure that the fuel design
safety criterion of more than 99.9% of the fuel rods avoiding
transition boiling during normal operation as well as during any
anticipated operational occurrence is met.
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 by close of business (4:15 p.m.
EST) 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 amendment 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 amendment before the expiration of
the 14-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. 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
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications 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 April 27, 1998, 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 room located at the Morris Area Public Library District, 604
Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450. 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
[[Page 14737]]
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
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 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 March 19, 1998, 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 Morris Area Public Library District, 604
Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March, 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lawrence W. Rossbach,
Project Manager Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-8005 Filed 3-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
