[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