[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66394-66396]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33055]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456 and STN 50-457]


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. 
NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72, and NPF-77 issued to Commonwealth Edison 
Company (the licensee) for operation of Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Ogle County, Illinois and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Will County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would allow licensee control of the reactor 
coolant system pressure and temperature limits for heatup, cooldown, 
low temperature operation and hydrostatic testing. ComEd also proposed 
to relocate the reactor vessel capsule withdrawal schedule in 
accordance with Generic Letter 91-01.
    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

[[Page 66395]]

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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes relocate RCS [reactor coolant system] P/T 
[pressure and temperature] limits, LTOP [low temperature 
overpressure protection] system setpoints, hydrostatic testing 
requirements, and the reactor vessel capsule withdrawal schedule, 
along with supporting information, from the Technical Specifications 
to a PTLR [pressure temperature limits report]. Compliance with 
these limits will continue to be required by the Technical 
Specifications. However, the limits themselves will be maintained in 
a Licensee-controlled document. Changes to the limits will be 
controlled by Section 6.9.1.11 of the Technical Specifications. 
Changes to the RCS P/T limits can only be made in accordance with 
the NRC-approved methodologies listed in the Technical 
Specifications. The limits and the Technical Specifications will 
continue to assure the function of the reactor vessel as a pressure 
boundary. Revision to the LTOP limits can only be made in accordance 
with the approved methodologies listed in the Technical 
Specifications, and any resulting setpoint changes are made through 
the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Changes to the specimen withdrawal 
requirements are governed by Appendix H to 10 CFR 50.
    The proposed changes do not impact any accident initiators or 
analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or transient 
events. They do not involve the addition or removal of any 
equipment, or any design changes to the facility. Therefore this 
proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes do not involve a modification to the 
physical configuration of the plant (i.e., no new equipment will be 
installed) or change in the methods governing normal plant 
operation. The proposed changes will not impose any new or different 
requirements or introduce a new accident or malfunction mechanism. 
There is no significant change in the types or significant increase 
in the amounts of any effluent that may be released offsite, and 
there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure. In addition, the Byron and 
Braidwood Technical Specifications will continue to require that the 
reactor is maintained within acceptable operational limits and 
ensure that the LTOP system meets operability requirements. 
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin 
of safety?
    The proposed changes do not result in any reduction in the 
margin of safety because they have no impact on safety analysis 
assumptions. The proposed changes have been shown to ensure that the 
P/T and LTOP limits in the PTLR continue to meet all necessary 
requirements for reactor vessel integrity. Any future changes to the 
RCS P/T, LTOP limits, or supporting information must be performed in 
accordance with NRC-approved methodologies. Technical Specifications 
continue to require compliance with the limits in the PTLR. 
Additionally, any revision to the LTOP limits which result in 
setpoint changes will be evaluated under the provisions of 10 CFR 
50.59. The reactor vessel capsule withdrawal schedule will continue 
to meet the requirements of Appendix H to 10 CFR 50. Therefore, 
these changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin 
of safety.
    ComEd has concluded that the RCS P/T and LTOP limits are no 
longer required to be located in the Technical Specifications under 
10 CFR 50.36 or Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act, and are not 
required to obviate the possibility of an abnormal situation or 
event giving rise to an immediate threat to the public health and 
safety. Additionally, they do not fall within any of the four 
criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2)(ii) for defining Technical 
Specification Limiting Condition for Operations.

    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 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 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 January 20, 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: for Byron, located at the Byron Public Library District, 
109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron, Illinois 61010; for Braidwood, 
the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington, 
Illinois 60481. 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

[[Page 66396]]

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 20555-0001, 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 May 21, 1997, as supplemented on 
November 18, 1997, and December 3, 1997, which are 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: for Byron, located at the Byron Public Library 
District, 109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron, Illinois 61010; for 
Braidwood, the Wilmington Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, 
Wilmington, Illinois 60481.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of December, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George F. Dick, Jr.,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-33055 Filed 12-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P