95-23285. 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 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 48728-48730]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-23285]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    [Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249]
    
    
    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 Nos. 
    DPR-19 and DPR-25 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (the licensee) 
    for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, 
    located in Grundy County, Illinois.
        The proposed amendment would upgrade the Dresden 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    superseded requirements and modifications to the TS based on the 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 Letters (GL), and (4) relocating 
    specific items to more appropriate TS locations. The September 1, 1995, 
    application proposed to upgrade only Section 6.0 (Administrative 
    Controls) of the Dresden TS.
        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 contained 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 Station's Technical Specification Section 6.0 
    are based on STS guidelines or later operating plant's NRC accepted 
    changes. Any deviations from STS requirements do not significantly 
    increase the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated 
    accidents for Dresden Station. 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.
        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, or the addition of 
    requirements which are based on the current safety analysis. Others 
    represent 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 Station's Technical 
    Specification Section 6.0 is based on STS guidelines or later 
    operating plants' NRC accepted changes. The proposed amendment has 
    been reviewed for acceptability at the Dresden Nuclear Power Station 
    considering similarity of system or component design versus the STS 
    or later operating plants. Any deviations from STS requirements do 
    not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
    previously evaluated for Dresden Station. No new modes of operation 
    are introduced by the proposed changes. 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.
        Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 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. Others 
    represent minor curtailments of the current requirements which are 
    based on generic guidance or previously approved provisions for 
    other stations. Some of the later 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 with 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 Technical Specification Section 6.0 
    implements present requirements, or the intent of present STS. Any 
    deviations from STS requirements do not significantly reduce the 
    margin of safety for Dresden Station. 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 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 and maintain 
    necessary levels of system or component reliability, 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 
    
    
    [[Page 48729]]
    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, MD, 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 October 20, 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 room located at the Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty Street, 
    Morris, IL 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 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, 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 Mr. Robert 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 
    
    [[Page 48730]]
    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 September 1, 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 Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty 
    Street, Morris, IL 60450.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of September 1995.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John F. Stang,
    Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
    Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 95-23285 Filed 9-19-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
09/20/1995
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-23285
Pages:
48728-48730 (3 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249
PDF File:
95-23285.pdf