62896 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

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 Ocean County Library, Reference

Department, 101 Washington Street,

Toms River, NJ 08753.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of November 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Vernon L. Rooney,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–29813 Filed 12–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[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 performancebased 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices 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.
62898 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 235 / Thursday, December 7, 1995 / Notices

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

Application for a License to Import

Nuclear Waste

Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b) ‘‘Public

notice of receipt of an application’’,

please take notice that the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission has received the

following application for an import

license. Copies of the application are on

file in the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission’s Public Document Room

located at 2120 L Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

A request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene may be filed within

30 days after publication of this notice

in the Federal Register. Any request for

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

shall be served by the requestor or

petitioner upon the applicant, the Office

of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555; and the Executive Secretary,

U.S. Department of State, Washington,

D.C. 20520.

The information concerning the

application follows.