[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 7, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17036-17037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9039]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455]
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 the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, located in
Ogle County, Illinois.
The proposed amendments would allow the licensee to defer the 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Type A testing of the Byron, Unit 2,
containment until the next refueling outage in 1999.
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
amendments requested 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, which is
presented below:
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
An extension, by a maximum of 10 months, of the Type A test
interval does not involve a change to any structures, systems, or
components, does not affect reactor operations, is not an accident
initiator, and does not change any existing safety analysis
previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Therefore, there is no
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
Several tables of UFSAR Chapter 15, ``Accident Analyses,''
provide containment leak rate values used in assessing the
consequences of accidents discussed in this chapter. Although an
extension can increase the probability that an increase in
containment leakage could go undetected for a maximum of 10 months
the risk resulting from this proposed change is inconsequential as
documented in NUREG-1493, ``Performance-Based Containment Leakage
Test Program''. This document indicated that given the insensitivity
of reactor risk to containment leakage rate and a small fraction of
leakage paths are detected solely by Type A testing, increasing the
time between integrated leak rate tests is possible with minimal
impact on public risk. Further, industry experience presented in
this document indicated that Type A testing has had insignificant
impact on uncertainties involved with containment leak rates.
Based on risk information presented in NUREG-1493, the proposed
change does not increase 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 change does not alter the plant design, systems,
components, or reactor operations, only the frequency of test
performance. New conditions or parameters that contribute to the
initiation of accidents would not be created as a result of this
proposed change. The change does not involve new equipment and
existing equipment does not have to be operated in a different
manner, therefore there are no new failure modes to consider.
An extension, by a maximum of 10 months, of the Type A test
interval as shown in NUREG-1493 has no impact on, nor contributes to
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident as evaluated
in the UFSAR. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
With the exception of this 10 month extension of the Type A test
interval, the actual tests will not change. Quantitative risk
studies documented in NUREG-1493 regarding extended testing
intervals demonstrated that there was minimal impact on the public
health and safety. Reducing the frequency and allowing for a greater
test interval, as stated in the NUREG resulted in an
``imperceptible'' increase in risk to public safety. Further, a
table in this NUREG regarding risk impacts due to a reduction in
testing frequency illustrates that there was also minimal difference
in risk to the public safety when the test frequency was relaxed.
The proposed change will not reduce the availability of systems
and components associated with containment integrity that would be
required to mitigate accident conditions nor are any containment
leakage rates, parameters or accident assumptions affected by the
proposed change.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety, based on the above information.
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
amendments requested 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
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 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
[[Page 17037]]
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 7, 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 the Byron Public Library District, 109 N.
Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron Illinois 61010. 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 amendments 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 amendments requested involve
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance
of the amendments.
If the final determination is that the amendments requested involve
a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendments.
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 amendments dated November 7, 1997, as supplemented
March 24, 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 Byron Public Library District, 109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron
Illinois 61010.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of April, 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John B. Hickman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-9039 Filed 4-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
