[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4930-4932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-1814]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 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 amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. 
NPF-72 and NPF-77 issued to the Commonwealth Edison Company (the 
licensee) for operation of the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Will County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications 
for Braidwood 1 and 2 by deleting Section 4.7.6.e.6 which presently 
requires a surveillance to verify that the control room ventilation 
system can be manually isolated and placed in the recirculation mode of 
operation. This manual isolation would be initiated in response to a 
report of a chlorine release in the vicinity of the Braidwood Station.
    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 change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Elimination of the requirement to test control room ventilation 
manual isolation capability does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. This requirement had been previously necessary because of 
the potential of a rail borne chlorine accident. Since that time of 
the imposed surveillance, the Norfolk and Western railroad line 
which transported chlorine near Braidwood has been removed. In 
addition, a study has concluded that there are no potential 
stationary chlorine release sources within a 10 mile radius that 
could pose a threat to control room habitability. The evaluation 
concluded that the realistic probability of a transported source of 
chlorine passing within the critical distance of 4900 feet of 
Braidwood Station is practically zero. Even using the very 
conservative assumption that all transported sources of chlorine use 
IL 53 or IL 129, the occurrence of an accidental release from these 
shipments was calculated to be only 2 x 10-6 events per year. 
Thus the probability of a chlorine release is within the 
requirements of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan (SRP), July 1981 
Section 2.2.3, and removal of the requirement to conduct Control 
Room ventilation isolation tests every 18 months does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    To ensure that no potential stationary chlorine release source 
is introduced within a ten mile radius of Braidwood Station, the 
station will perform a survey every three years to ensure that the 
protection of the control room personnel from risk due to any 
potential chlorine accident is maintained sufficiently small.
    B. The proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The probability of a chlorine accident that could impact the 
control room environment has been shown to be within the 
requirements of SRP Section 2.2.3. Control Room isolation capability 
testing was performed only to address a chlorine accident. 
Therefore, removal of this requirement does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    C. The proposed changes does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Control room ventilation isolation testing was performed as a 
result of the possibility of a chlorine accident in the vicinity of 
Braidwood. As demonstrated by a recent study, the probability of 
this event occurring has been reduced to practically zero within the 
acceptable limits of SRP Section 2.2.3 for transportable chlorine. 
Survey of the ten mile radius around Braidwood found no stationary 
chlorine sources with large enough quantities to pose a hazard to 
control room personnel. Thus, the removal of the requirement to 
perform Control Room ventilation isolation tests every 18 months 
does not involve a significant reduction in a 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 [[Page 4931]] 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 room located at 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 nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceedings; 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 
60690, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests [[Page 4932]] 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 January 5, 1994, as supplemented on 
April 26, 1994, September 30, 1994, and January 12, 1995, 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 a 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. 95-1814 Filed 1-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M