[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27798-27800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12850]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-295]


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-39, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), 
for operation of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, located in 
Lake County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would add a provision to the Technical 
Specifications (TS) to permit continued operation of Zion, Unit 1, with 
154 steam generator tubes in service which potentially exceed the 40 
percent through-wall repair or plugging criteria. The 154 tubes were 
identified as possibly exceeding the repair or plugging criteria as a 
result of the application of a revised flaw disposition guideline for 
test results retained from previous Zion, Unit 1, steam generator 
inspections. The proposed change consists of a footnote added to the TS 
which states that the 154 affected steam generator tubes may remain in 
service until initial entry into Mode 5, Cold Shutdown, for the 
refueling outage that is currently scheduled to begin in September 
1995.
    In 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6), it 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 concerns in late 1994 
associated with the methodology for the disposition of some detected 
indications from eddy current testing performed on Zion steam generator 
tubes. Revised flaw disposition guidelines were developed and applied 
to test results retained from previous Zion, Unit 1, steam generator 
inspections. The application of the revised guidelines resulted in the 
identification of 154 steam generator tubes which could potentially 
exceed the plugging or repair criteria specified in TS 4.3.1.B.4.A.6 
(imperfection depth of greater than or equal to 40 percent of the 
nominal tube wall thickness). On May 16, 1995, the licensee determined 
that the uncertainty regarding compliance with TS 3.4.3.1.B required a 
unit shutdown in accordance with TS 3.0.3. The licensee requested and 
was granted a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) verbally on May 
16, 1995. The written request for the NOED and a request for a license 
amendment was submitted on May 17, 1995. In order to restore licensee 
compliance with TS 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 Main Steamline Break is the bounding event for secondary 
system depressurization. The sequence of events which are necessary 
precursors to the catastrophic steam line failure are external to 
the Steam Generators and is unaffected by the fact that Steam 
Generator tubes with known indications located deep within the tube 
sheet crevice were allowed to remain in service. There is no 
credible manner in which the condition of the tubes deep within the 
tube sheet crevice of the Steam Generator can influence the 
integrity of the Main Steamline.
    The probability that a tube rupture will occur is not increased 
because the indications of interest are constrained deep within the 
tube sheet crevice. Due to the fact that the degradation mechanism 
has been characterized as inner diameter (I.D.) PWSCC and that they 
are located deep within the tube sheet crevice, the failure 
probability (i.e. tube rupture) is not increased. Thus, the 
probability of tube rupture for these indications is taken to the 
zero. With no possibility of the tubes of interest rupturing due to 
the indications constrained within the tube sheet area, there is no 
increase in the probability of occurrence that a tube rupture event 
will occur.
    No significant increase in offsite dose consequences have been 
postulated for the Steamline Break transient. In order to 
characterize the impact of an event which would involve a limiting 
Main Steamline Break coincident with the maximum credible leakage 
from all affected tubes, a dose evaluation has been performed and 
compared to the typical acceptance criteria of a small fraction 
(<difference>10%) of the guidelines set forth in 10 CFR 100. The 
evaluation performed is described in detail in Enclosure 6 [Letter 
from T. Simpkin (ComEd) to Document Control Desk (NRC) dated May 17, 
1995] of this request and assumed the following occurrences:

--Failure of a main streamline outside of containment,
--Bounding leakage of 0.5 GPM per tube for 154 tubes, and
--The calculation assumes a 2 hour release.

    When the RCS iodine limit is administratively constrained to 
0.06 uCi/cc, the thyroid dose is calculated to be just under 30 Rem 
thyroid, which is still a small percentage of 10 CFR 100 limits. 
Thus, the consequences of an accident previously analyzed are not 
significantly increased.
    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 do not add new or different types of plant 
equipment nor do they alter any plant procedures used during 
recovery from accidents described in the analysis. Installed 
equipment is not being [[Page 27799]] operated in a new or different 
manner. No new failure mechanisms are created by this change. 
Because no change is being made to the initiating mechanisms of an 
accident, and no equipment or procedural changes are involved, the 
proposed LAR does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The margin of safety for allowable tube degradation is based on 
a conservative allowance for eddy current uncertainty and a high 
confidence level that sufficient tube wall thickness remains to 
operate until the next scheduled inspection period with an 
acceptably low risk of tube failure. The indications of interest are 
characterized as I.D. PWSCC located at the roll transition nominally 
18.25 inches deep in the tube sheet crevice. Past inspections 
indicate that any crack growth will be into the rolled portion of 
the tube. The recent operating history of Unit 1, both in the lack 
of primary-to-secondary leakage and the stable behavior of the tubes 
in service, provides confidence that sufficient structural integrity 
exists to support at least the additional four months of power 
operation. Thus, the margin of safety has not been adversely 
impacted.

    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, 
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 June 26, 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 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. 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. [[Page 27800]] 
    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 May 17, 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 19th day of May 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-12850 Filed 5-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M