[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8998-9000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4855]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249]
Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, 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 (ComEd, the
licensee) for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2
and 3, located in Grundy County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would change Technical Specifications (TS)
3.7.K, ``Suppression Chamber,'' and
[[Page 8999]]
3.8.C, ``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' to restore the maximum allowable water
temperature for the Containment Cooling Service Water inlet and the
Suppression Pool. This change is required to restore the capability to
operate the facility during the warmer months of the year.
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:
The proposed License Amendment presents the results of new
safety analyses which were performed using revised values for
certain system and equipment performance parameters that more
accurately reflect the Dresden Station design. The changes restore
operating limits on the Ultimate Heat Sink and Suppression Pool
average water temperature consistent with their design and which
will permit operation of the facility during the warmer months of
the year. The proposed changes directly effect the initial
conditions assumed in the safety analyses for the plant, however new
analyses demonstrate that the facility will continue to respond in a
manner consistent with the existing safety analyses. The methods for
demonstrating the adequacy of the existing design are proposed for
change and the amendment details the basis for acceptance of the new
methods and parameters proposed.
No substantive physical changes to the facility are proposed.
The plant will continue to operate in a manner consistent with its
original design and the consequences of previously analyzed
accidents are not significantly affected by this proposed License
Amendment.
The proposed changes do not effect systems which are
contributors to initiating events for previously evaluated accidents
and therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated
is not increased by the proposed amendment.
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
The proposed license amendment for Dresden Station does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than
previously evaluated for Dresden Station. The proposed changes
merely present and incorporate the results of new analyses which
demonstrate the ability of the facility to operate consistent with
the safety analyses. No substantive physical changes to the facility
are proposed. No substantially new modes of operation have been
identified or are introduced by the proposed changes. The changes to
plant procedures which are required to support the proposed change
are consistent with the operating practices and procedures currently
used at the facility.
Based on this, the proposed change does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
(3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety
because:
The proposed license amendment does not significantly effect the
margin of safety. The proposed changes merely incorporate new
analysis methods and results into the design basis for the facility,
as well as restore the limits on UHS [ultimate heat sink] average
water temperature and Suppression Pool maximum average water
temperature to the limits which have historically existed at the
facility. The water temperature limits are changed to permit
continued operation of the facility during the warmer months of the
year. The new analyses performed include these higher water
temperature limits as initial conditions, and utilize new methods
and more representative system parameters than existed in previously
utilized analytical models of the effected plant systems. The new
methods of analysis include modeling of the containment pressure
following certain postulated limiting design basis accidents in a
time-dependent manner to permit realistic determination of actual
pressures which would be expected, as well as the use of improved
flow and heat transfer models for determining heat removal rates. An
improved representation of actual post-shutdown reactor decay heat
is also incorporated into the new analyses.
The new analyses demonstrate that with the proposed changes to
the Technical Specifications and the more realistic representation
of system parameters, Dresden Station will operate in a manner
consistent with the previously existing safety analyses. The
proposed changes to the way in which the facility is modeled provide
additional margin with regard to some key post-accident parameters,
such as postulated Peak Clad Temperature which is demonstrated to be
reduced significantly.
Based on operation of the facility consistent with its
historical limits, consistent with the limits of the existing safety
analyses results, the improved realism and more representative
models of actual postulated plant conditions, and the resulting
improvements in key post-accident safety limits, this change does
not significantly effect 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 Chief, Rules
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications 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 March 31, 1997 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
[[Page 9000]]
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 Area Public
Library District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 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 20555-0001, 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 20555-0001, 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 February 17, 1997, 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 Area Public Library
District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of February 1997.
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. 97-4855 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P