[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2923]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 9, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374]

 

Commonwealth Edison Co.; 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-11 and NPF-18 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company, (the licensee) 
for operation of the LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in LaSalle County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would extend the functional test interval 
from Monthly to Quarterly for the following:

1. Reactor protection system instrumentation surveillances for Main 
Steam Line Isolation Valve Closure, Turbine Stop Valve Closure, and 
Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure Valve Trip System Oil Pressure 
Low; and
2. EDC-RPT system instrumentation surveillances for Turbine Stop 
Valve Closure, and Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure.

    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:

    Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical 
Specification Amendment which extends the Surveillance Test Interval 
(STI) for certain instruments in the Reactor Protection System (RPS) 
and the End-of-Cycle Recirculation Pump Trip (EOC-RPT) system for 
LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, and determined that they do 
not constitute a Significant Hazards Consideration. Based on the 
criteria for defining a significant hazards consideration 
established in 10 CFR 50.92, operation of LaSalle County Station, 
Units 1 and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
The proposed changes increase the STI for actuation instrumentation 
supporting RPS and EOC-RPT trip functions. There are no changes in 
any of the affected systems themselves. Because of this there is no 
change in the probability of occurrence of an accident or the 
consequences of an accident or the consequences of malfunction of 
equipment. With respect to the malfunction of equipment, topical 
reports prepared by GE demonstrated that there is a reduction in 
scram frequency for the RPS. This offsets the slight increase in 
trip function unavailability determined by GE. This was judged 
acceptable by GE. The NRC concurred with this conclusion in its 
review of the topical reports (NEDC-30851P-A). For EOC-RPT GE 
demonstrated that the trip function unavailability when the 
surveillance interval is extended from 1 to 3 months is lower for 
the turbine stop valve trip function and slightly higher for the 
turbine control valve trip function than the same trip functions for 
RPS-scram. However, GE concluded that the small increase in EOC-RPT 
unavailability (represented by small increased risk of a MCPR 
violation) is offset by the benefits associated with the similar 
approved STI and AOT changes for the RPS-scram function. Therefore, 
GE concluded that the STI changes for EOC-RPT trip function are 
bounded by the approved RPS analysis (Reference 5). The NRC accepted 
the conclusions of GE by a SER included in Reference 9. The proposed 
changes are consistent with the Safety Evaluation Reports issued in 
these topical reports. The proposed changes therefore do not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
    The proposed changes do not create the possibility for an 
accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated 
previously in the UFSAR. The proposed changes increase the STI for 
the RPS and EOC-RPT Instrumentation. There are no changes in the 
instrumentation of these systems. Since there are no such changes 
there is no possibility for an accident or malfunction of a 
different type than any previously evaluated.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
because:
    The proposed changes do not reduce the margin of safety as 
defined in the basis for any Technical Specification. The proposed 
changes do not change any setpoints in the above mentioned systems 
or their levels of redundancy. Setpoints are based upon the drift 
occurring during an 18 month calibration interval. The bases in the 
Technical Specifications either do not discuss STI, or state ``* * * 
one channel may be inoperable for brief intervals to conduct 
required surveillance.'' The proposed changes are bounded by the 
analyses of References 5 and 9. These analyses, which were prepared 
by GE and approved by the NRC, examined the effects of extending STI 
and found that the proposed changes would not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety. LaSalle Station Units 1 and 2 RPS 
and EOC-RPT systems have been compared to the generic analyses and 
verified to be bounded.
    This proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
relaxation of the criteria used to establish safety limits, a 
significant relaxation of the bases for the limiting safety system 
settings or a significant relaxation of the bases for the limiting 
conditions for operations. Therefore, based on the guidance provided 
in the Federal Register and the criteria established in 10 CFR 
50.92(c), the proposed change does not constitute a significant 
hazards consideration.

    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 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 P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfork Avenue, 
Bethesda, 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests, for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By February 24, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at the Public Library of Illinois Valley 
Community College, Route No. 1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348. 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 a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
preceding; 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.
    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 20555, 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 James E. Dyer: 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 September 10, 1993 as supplemented on 
November 17, 1993, which is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room, 
located at the Public Library of Illinois Valley Community College, 
Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony T. Gody, Jr.,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV/V, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-2923 Filed 2-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M