[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62896-62898]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29814]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, 50-265, 50-373, and 50-374]


Commonwealth Edison Company and Midamerican Energy 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. 
DRP-19, DRP-25, DRP-29, DRP-30, NPF-11, and NPF-18 issued to 
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee) for operation of the 
Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy County, 
Illinois, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in 
Dixon County, Illinois, and LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in LaSalle County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would change the technical specifications of 
these plants to incorporate 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, ``Primary 
Reactor Containment Leakage Testing For Water-Cooled Power Reactors'', 
Option B.
    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:

    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because of the 
following:
    10 CFR 50, Appendix J has been amended to include provisions 
regarding performance-based leakage testing requirements (Option B). 
Option B allows plants with satisfactory Integrated Leak Rate 
Testing (ILRT) performance history to reduce the Type A testing 
frequency from three tests in ten years to one test in ten years. 
For Type B and Type C tests, Option B allows plants to reduce 
testing frequency based on the leak rate test history of each 
component. In addition, Option B establishes controls to ensure 
continued satisfactory performance of the affected penetrations 
during the extended testing interval. To be consistent with the 
requirements of Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, ComEd proposes to 
include appropriate changes to the Technical Specifications that 
incorporate the necessary revisions associated with Option B of 10 
CFR 50, Appendix J.
    The proposed amendment represents the conversion of current 
Technical Specification requirements to maintain consistency with 
those requirements specified by Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. 
The proposed changes are consistent with the current plant safety 
analyses. Implementation of these changes will provide continued 
assurance that specified parameters associated with containment 
integrity will 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 to 
current Technical Specification requirements, but are based on the 
requirements specified by Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. Any 
such changes are consistent with the current plant safety analyses 
and have been determined to represent sufficient requirements for 
the assurance and reliability of equipment assumed to operate in the 
safety analyses, or provide continued assurance that specified 
parameters associated with containment integrity remain within their 
acceptance limits. As such, these changes will not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated 
accident.
    The associated systems affecting the leak rate integrity related 
to this proposed amendment request are not assumed in any safety 
analyses to initiate any accident sequence; therefore, the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased by 
this proposed amendment which incorporates the requirements of 
Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. In addition, the proposed 
limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for 
the proposed amendments to any such systems that affect the leak 
rate integrity are consistent with the current requirements 
specified within the Technical Specifications. The proposed changes 
to any Technical Specification limiting condition for operation or 
surveillance requirement maintain an equivalent level of reliability 
and availability for all affected systems. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment does not increase the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated as the probability of the affected systems 
associated with leak rate integrity, from performing their intended 
function, is unaffected by the proposed limiting conditions for 
operation or surveillance requirements.
    There is no change to the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated because maintaining leakage within the analyzed limit 
assumed for any associated accident analyses does not adversely 
affect either the on-site or off-site dose consequences resulting 
from an accident. In addition, containment leakage is not an 
accident initiator. As such, there is no adverse impact on the 
probability of accident initiators. Thus, there is no significant 
increase in the probability of any previously analyzed accident.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
    Option B of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J specifies, in part, that a 
Type A test which measures both the containment system overall 
integrated leakage rate at the containment pressure and system 
alignments assumed during a large break loss of coolant accident 
(LOCA), and demonstrates the capability of the primary containment 
to withstand an internal pressure load, may be conducted at a 
periodic interval based on the performance of the overall 
containment system. The acceptable leakage rates are specified in 
the plant's Technical Specifications. For Type B and Type C tests, 
intervals are proposed for establishment based on the performance 
history of each component. Acceptance criteria for each component is 
based upon demonstration that the sum leakage rates at design basis 
pressure conditions for applicable penetrations, is within the limit 
specified in the Technical Specifications.
    The proposed amendment represents the conversion of current 
Technical Specification requirements to maintain consistency with 
those requirements specified in Option B to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J. 
The proposed changes are consistent with the current plant safety 
analyses. Some minor curtailments of current Technical Specification 
requirements, associated with containment integrity are based on 
generic guidance or similarly 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 testing 
of components at the station; however, these are in accordance with 
the current plant safety analyses, and provide for appropriate 
testing or surveillance that are consistent with Option B to 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix J. The proposed changes will not introduce new 
failure mechanisms beyond those already considered in the current 
plant safety analyses. 

[[Page 62897]]

    The proposed amendment has been reviewed for acceptability at 
the stations considering similarity of system or component design 
affecting containment integrity. No new modes of operation are 
introduced by the proposed changes. Surveillance requirements are 
changed to reflect corresponding changes associated with Option B to 
10 CFR part 50, Appendix J and improvements in technique or 
frequency of leak rate testing performance. The proposed changes 
maintain at least the present level of operability of any such 
system that affects plant containment integrity. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The associated systems that affect plant leak rate integrity 
related to the proposed amendment, are not assumed in any plant 
safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence. In addition, the 
proposed surveillance requirements for any such affected systems are 
consistent with the current requirements specified within the 
Technical Specifications and are consistent with the requirements of 
Option B to 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J. The proposed surveillance 
requirements maintain an equivalent level of reliability and 
availability of all affected systems and therefore, does not 
increase the consequences of any previously evaluated accident. As 
such, the probability of the affected systems, associated with leak 
rate test integrity, from performing their intended function, is 
unaffected by the proposed limiting conditions for operation and 
surveillance requirements.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
because:
    The provisions specified in Option B to 10 CFR part 50 Appendix 
J allows changes to Type A, Type B and Type C test intervals based 
upon the performance of past leak rate tests. The effect of 
extending containment leakage rate testing intervals is a 
corresponding increase in the likelihood of containment leakage.
    The degree to which intervals can be extended is a direct 
function on the potential effect on existing plant safety margins 
and the public health and safety that can occur due to an increased 
likelihood of containment leakage.
    Changing Appendix J test intervals from those currently provided 
in the Technical Specification to those provided for in 10 CFR part 
50, Appendix J, Option B, slightly increases the risk associated 
with Type A, Type B, and Type C specific accident sequences. 
Historical data suggests that increasing the Type C test interval 
can slightly increase the associated risk; however, this is 
compensated by the corresponding risk reduction benefits associated 
with reduction in component cycling, stress, and wear associated 
with increased test intervals. In addition, when considering the 
total integrated risk which includes all analyzed accident 
sequences, the risk associated with increasing test intervals is 
negligible.
    ComEd proposes to revise the Technical Specifications to be 
consistent with those provisions specified in Option B of 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix J. The proposed changes are consistent with 
current plant safety analyses. In addition, these proposed changes 
do not involve revisions to the design of the station. As such, the 
proposed individual changes will maintain the same level of 
reliability of the equipment associated with containment integrity, 
assumed to operate in the plant safety analysis, or provide 
continued assurance that specified parameters affecting plant leak 
rate integrity, will remain within their acceptance limits. 
Therefore, the proposed changes provide continued assurance of the 
leakage integrity of the containment without adversely affecting the 
public health and safety and as such, will not significantly reduce 
existing plant safety margins.
    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications 
implements present requirements, or the requirements in accordance 
with the guidelines set forth in Option B to 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix J. The proposed changes have been evaluated and found to be 
acceptable for use at the stations based on system design, safety 
analysis requirements, and operational performance. Since the 
proposed changes are based on NRC accepted provisions that are 
applicable at the stations and maintain necessary levels of system 
or component reliability affecting plant containment integrity, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    The performance-based approach to leakage rate testing concludes 
that the impact on public health and safety due to revised testing 
intervals is negligible. The proposed amendment for the stations 
will not reduce the availability of systems associated with 
containment integrity when required to mitigate accident conditions; 
therefore, 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 
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, 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 8, 1996, 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 rooms located at the Morris Area Public Library District, 604 
Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for Dresden Station, Jacobs Memorial 
Library, Illinois Valley Community College, Oglesby, Illinois for 
LaSalle County Station, and Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, 
Dixon, Illinois for Quad Cities Station. 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. 

[[Page 62898]]

    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 Robert A. 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 
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 November 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 rooms located at the Morris Area Public Library 
District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for the Dresden Station, 
Jacobs Memorial Library, Illinois Valley Community College, Oglesby, 
Illinois for LaSalle County Station, and Dixon Public Library, 221 
Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad Cities Station.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of December 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Pulsifer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-29814 Filed 12-06-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P