[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4932-4934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1813]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. STN 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456 and STN 50-457]


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. 
NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72 and NPF-77, issued to the Commonwealth Edison 
Company (the licensee) for operation of the Byron Station, Units 1 and 
2, located in Ogle County, Illinois, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 
and 2, located in Will County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendments would revise the Byron Station, Unit 1 and 
2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TS) 
Section 3/4.7.6 concerning the Control Room Ventilation (VC) System. 
These changes are consistent with the revised Standard Technical 
Specifications for Westinghouse Plants. Specifically, the allowed 
outage time for one train of the system would be changed from 7 to 30 
days, if the train was declared inoperable only due to an inoperable 
chiller unit. An alternative action would also be added to TS 3.7.6.a, 
requiring the cessation of all core alterations, reactivity, additions, 
and spent fuel movement if one train of the system is inoperable during 
refueling operations. By letter dated July 19, 1994, the licensee 
responded to the Commission staff's comments and proposed to revise TS 
3/4.7.6 by adding a surveillance requirement to demonstrate the control 
room ventilation heat load removal capability every 18 months. 
Revisions to associated Bases and minor editorial changes would also be 
made for the purpose of updating and clarifying the TS.
    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:

    A. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The first proposed change will increase the allowed outage time 
(AOT) for a VC chiller from seven days to thirty days in Modes 1 
through 4. The thirty day AOT is based on the low probability of an 
event requiring control room isolation concurrent with failure of 
the redundant train of VC. Therefore, one train of VC will always be 
available to remove normal and accident heat loads and provide 
control room isolation. Consequently, this change will not result in 
an increase to offsite dose rates or the exposure of control room 
operators.
    Increasing the AOT will allow for more extensive maintenance and 
should increase overall availability of the VC chillers. This 
provides additional assurance that a chiller will be operable on at 
least one train of VC. In the unlikely event that both VC chillers 
became inoperable, alternate non-safety related means to maintain 
control room temperature are available. Based on the above, the 
proposed increase to the AOT will not increase the probability or 
consequences of any previously analyzed accident.
    The proposed change to the Action a for Modes 5 and 6 adds an 
alternative to placing the remaining operable VC train in the makeup 
mode. The alternative would allow the option to suspend CORE 
ALTERATIONS, positive reactivity changes, and movement of irradiated 
fuel. In Modes 5 and 6, this greatly reduces the probability of an 
event that would require control room isolation. The change will 
have no impact on the consequences of an accident since the 
remaining train of VC would be capable of isolating the control room 
on a high radiation signal and providing the necessary temperature 
control. Based on this review, the proposed Action will not result 
in an increase in the probability or consequences of a previously 
analyzed accident.
    As noted above, the proposed amendment adds a restriction to 
suspend movement of irradiated fuel. This change reduces the 
probability of the occurrence of a fuel handling accident and has no 
impact on the consequences of any accident. In addition, the wording 
in Action b was revised to be consistent with the wording in Action 
a. This change is purely editorial and, therefore, has no impact on 
the probability or consequences of an accident.
    The proposed changes to Section 3/4.7.6 are requested to ensure 
that surveillances are performed to verify that the Control Room 
Ventilation System remains capable of performing its design 
function. Operability of the Control Room Chillers ensures that the 
ambient air temperature does not exceed the allowable temperature 
for continuous duty rating for the equipment and instrumentation 
cooled by the Control Room Ventilation System. The ability of the 
Control Room Ventilation System to limit the radiation exposure to 
personnel occupying the control room to 5 rem or less whole body, or 
its equivalent, is not affected by the addition of this surveillance 
requirement. The proposed changes do not affect any accident 
initiators or precursors and do not change or alter the design 
assumptions for the systems or components used to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident. Consequently, the changes do not impact 
any accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    B. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The first proposed change will increase the AOT for a VC chiller 
from seven days to thirty days in Modes 1 through 4. During the time 
one chiller is inoperable, the redundant train is capable of 
handling the heat loads during normal operation and during all 
accident scenarios. No new operating conditions are created by this 
change. Therefore, this change will not result in any new or 
different accident from those previously analyzed.
    The proposed change to the Action for Modes 5 and 6 adds an 
alternative to allow the option to suspend CORE ALTERATIONS, 
positive reactivity changes, and movement of irradiated fuel. In 
Modes 5 and 6, this greatly reduces the probability of an event that 
would require control room isolation. Also, the remaining train of 
VC would still be [[Page 4933]] capable of temperature control and 
isolating the control room on a high radiation signal. This change 
will not create any new plant operating conditions. Based on this 
review, the proposed Action will not result in a new or different 
kind of accident.
    The additional restriction on the movement of irradiated fuel in 
Modes 5 and 6 will not create any new condition which has not been 
previously analyzed. In addition, for consistency with the wording 
in Action a, the word ``changes'' was replaced by the word 
``additions.'' This change is purely editorial and, therefore, has 
no potential to create a new kind of accident.
    The proposed changes to add a surveillance requirement to 
Section 3/4.7.6 do not affect the design or operation of any system, 
structure, or component in the plant. There are no changes to 
parameters governing plant operation; no new or different type of 
equipment will be installed. The proposed changes ensure that 
equipment remains capable of performing its design function.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of 
a new or different type of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    The basis for the VC Technical Specification to ensure that the 
temperature in the control room does not exceed maximum allowable 
for the equipment and instrumentation inside. The VC system is also 
required to limit radiation exposure to control room personnel 
following an accident. Either of the two redundant trains can 
perform both of these functions. As long as one train of VC is 
available, the margin of safety assumed in the bases for this 
specification is maintained.
    Increasing the AOT for one VC chiller unit has no impact on the 
redundant train of VC. Although one train of VC may be inoperable 
for a longer period of time, the redundant train can perform all 
normal and accident functions. The length of the AOT is sufficiently 
short to assure that a scenario involving an accident requiring 
control room isolation concurrent with the failure of the redundant 
train is not credible. Therefore, one train of VC will remain 
available and no reduction is made to the margin of safety.
    The second change involves adding an alternative Action in Modes 
5 and 6 that would restrict CORE ALTERATIONS, positive reactivity 
additions, and movement of irradiated fuel. The existing Action 
requires that the operable train of VC be placed in the makeup mode 
of operation. This Action ensures that any failures are readily 
detected. The alternate Action reduces the potential of an event 
that would require control room isolation while maintaining one 
train of VC operable. In both cases, the Actions assure that one 
train of VC is available for normal and emergency use. Therefore, 
the proposed change maintains the margin of safety.
    Another proposed change involves the condition with no VC trains 
operable in Modes 5 and 6. Since VC is not available, alternative 
means must be used to maintain control room temperature. Since the 
primary alternative involves utilization of outside air, the most 
appropriate action is to reduce the probability of an event that 
would require control room isolation. The proposed additional 
restriction on the movement of irradiated fuel provides added 
assurance that such an event will not occur. Therefore, the margin 
of safety is maintained. Also, for consistency with the wording in 
Action a, the word ``changes'' was replaced by the word 
``additions.'' This change is purely editorial and, therefore, has 
no impact on the margin of safety.
    The final proposed change to add a surveillance requirement does 
not affect the margin of safety for any Technical Specification. The 
initial conditions and methodologies used in the accident analyses 
remain unchanged, therefore, accident analysis results are not 
impacted. The addition of a Technical Specification surveillance 
provides further assurance that the Control Room Ventilation System 
is operable and capable of maintaining the ambient air temperature 
below the allowable temperature for the continuous duty rating of 
the equipment and instrumentation cooled by this system. These 
changes also provides consistency with Standard Technical 
Specifications.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a 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 February 24, 1995, 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 Byron Public Library, 109 N. Franklin, 
P.O. Box 434, Byron, Illinois 61010 for the Byron Station; for 
Braidwood, the Wilmington Township Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee 
Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481. 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 [[Page 4934]] 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. Contention 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 
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 amendments dated August 31, 1993, as supplemented July 
19, 1994, which are 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 
Bryon Public Library, 109 N. Franklin, P.O. Box 434, Byron, Illinois 
61010 for the Byron Station; for Braidwood, the Wilmington Township 
Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ramin R. Assa,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-1813 Filed 1-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M