95-16109. 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  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 34308-34311]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-16109]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    [Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304]
    
    
    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 amendments to Facility Operating License No. 
    CPR-39, and Facility Operating License No. DPR-48 issued to 
    Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), for operation of the 
    Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively, located in 
    Lake County, Illinois.
        The proposed amendment would add a provision to the Technical 
    Specifications (TSs) to allow the hot restart sequence loading test of 
    the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) to be performed independent of 
    the 24-hour endurance test. The TSs currently incorporate by 
    referencing Regulatory Guide 1.108, the requirement that the tests be 
    performed in a certain sequence, the 24-hour endurance test first, 
    followed immediately by the hot restart sequence loading test. The 
    proposed change consists of a footnote added to Specification 
    4.15.1.B.3 which states that the hot restart sequence loading test need 
    not be performed immediately following the 24-hour endurance test, but 
    shall be performed within 5 minutes of shutting down the EDG after it 
    has operated for a minimum of 2 hours between 3600 and 4000 KW. In 
    addition, statements are added to the Bases in Section 4.15 to note 
    this change to the required testing.
        10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) specifies that the Commission may, where exigent 
    circumstances exist, allow less than 30 days for public comment. 
    Exigent circumstances have been found to exist for this proposed 
    amendment. The licensee identified the emergency diesel generator 
    testing as an issue of noncompliance with the TSs on June 12, 1995, 
    during a review of another license amendment request. Changes to the 
    EDG test procedure made during preparations for the dual unit outage 
    (DUO) of fall 1993 allowed the hot restart sequence loading test to be 
    performed independently of the 24-hour endurance run. These tests were 
    
    [[Page 34309]]
    performed on all 5 EDGs during the DUO and repeated for the 2A and 2B 
    EDGs during the Unit 2 refueling outage (RFO) in 1995. When this 
    noncompliance was identified, both units were at 100% power. The 
    licensee requested and was granted a Notice of Enforcement Discretion 
    (NOED) verbally on June 13, 1995. The written request for the NOED and 
    a request for a license amendment were submitted on June 14, 1995. To 
    restore compliance with the TSs as quickly as possible and maintain 
    public participation in the license amendment process as much as 
    practical, the staff is exercising the exigent provisions of 10 CFR 
    50.91(a)(6).
        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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
    the probability or consequences of occurrence of any accident 
    previously evaluated.
        The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will change 
    the sequence of testing of EDGs that is performed on a refueling 
    cycle basis. The proposed changes will decouple the hot restart test 
    from the 24 hour EDG test. The proposed testing requirements satisfy 
    the underlying purpose of the EDG hot restart test, in that the 
    testing as proposed will verify the ability of the EDG to complete 
    the start up sequence from an equilibrium temperature immediately 
    following operation at full load (continuous rating) for a period of 
    time long enough to stabilize operating temperature. Since the 
    proposed changes impact only surveillance requirements used to 
    periodically verify the operability of a required safety system, and 
    since the proposed changes provide an equivalent level of testing 
    and eliminate redundant testing, the proposed changes will not 
    impact the operability or availability of a required system.
        Operation in accordance with the revised requirements will not 
    increase the likelihood that a transient initiating event will occur 
    since transients are initiated by equipment malfunction and/or 
    catastrophic system failure. The revised requirements affect testing 
    that is performed during refueling. Testing in accordance with the 
    proposed requirements will not increase the probability of failure 
    of the EDGs since the testing will provide an equivalent level of 
    testing to verify the operability of the EDGs. In addition, failure 
    of an EDG to start or failure of an EDG while operating is not 
    assumed to be an initiating event of an accident considered in the 
    Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
        Based on the above, operation in accordance with the proposed 
    requirements will not significantly increase the probability of 
    occurrence of any accident previously evaluated.
        The proposed requirements will meet the underlying purpose of 
    the existing testing requirements. The proposed testing will ensure 
    the ability of the EDG to start from a hot condition in the unlikely 
    event of an accident. The proposed testing requirements will only 
    decouple the hot restart test of the EDG from the 24 hour test of 
    the EDG that is performed during each refueling outage. Since the 
    proposed changes will not adversely affect the operability or 
    availability of the EDGs, the ability of the EDGs to operate and 
    power equipment important to safety will not be impacted and the 
    ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
    evaluated will not be affected. Based on the preceding discussion, 
    the consequences of accidents previously evaluated will not 
    significantly increase.
        2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
    or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
    evaluated.
        The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not 
    involve the addition of any new of [or] different types of safety 
    related equipment, nor do they involve the operation of equipment 
    required for safe operation of the facility in a manner different 
    from those addressed in the UFSAR. No safety related equipment or 
    function will be altered as a result of the proposed changes. Also, 
    the procedures that govern normal operation and recovery from an 
    accident are not affected by the proposed changes. The proposed 
    changes only decouple the hot restart test of the EDG from the 24 
    hour test of the EDG that is performed each refueling outage. 
    Testing in accordance with the revised requirements will provide an 
    equivalent level of confidence in the reliability of the EDG systems 
    to complete the start up sequence from a hot condition. The proposed 
    testing requirements satisfy the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.108 in 
    that the testing requirements will ensure EDG operability and 
    reliability. In addition, the proposed changes are consistent with 
    the intent of the changes recommended by the NRC in Generic Letter 
    93-05 and are consistent with the requirements of NUREG-1431. Since 
    no new failure modes or mechanisms are introduced by the proposed 
    changes, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident is 
    not created.
        3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
    in a margin of safety.
        Plant safety margins are established through LCOs (Limiting 
    Condition for Operation), limiting safety system settings, and 
    safety limits specified in the Technical Specifications.
        There will be no changes to either the physical design of the 
    plant or to any of these settings or limits as a result of the 
    proposed changes. The proposed testing requirements will only 
    decouple the hot restart test of the EDG from the 24 hour test of 
    the EDG that is performed during each refueling outage. Testing in 
    accordance with the proposed requirements will verify the ability of 
    the EDGs to complete the start up sequence from a hot condition as 
    is intended by the recommended testing in Regulatory Guide 1.108. In 
    addition, the proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the 
    changes recommended by the NRC in Generic Letter 93-05. Since the 
    proposed changes will not impact the availability or operability of 
    the EDGs to perform their intended function and since no LCOs, 
    safety limits, or safety system settings are affected by the 
    proposed changes, there is no significant reduction in a 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 15 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 15-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 15-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 Rules Review and 
    Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
    Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    
    
    [[Page 34310]]
    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 July 31, 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 Comment Room, the Gelman Building, 
    2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document 
    room located at the Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County Street, 
    Waukegan, Illinois 60085. 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 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, 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, Director, Project Directorate 
    III-2: 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 60690, 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 June 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 room, located at the Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County 
    Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 1995.
    
    
    [[Page 34311]]
    
        For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Clyde Y. Shiraki,
    Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
    Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 95-16109 Filed 6-29-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
06/30/1995
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-16109
Pages:
34308-34311 (4 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304
PDF File:
95-16109.pdf