[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 126 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34308-34311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-16109]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304]


Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of 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 amendments to Facility Operating License No. 
CPR-39, and Facility Operating License No. DPR-48 issued to 
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), for operation of the 
Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively, located in 
Lake County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would add a provision to the Technical 
Specifications (TSs) to allow the hot restart sequence loading test of 
the emergency diesel generators (EDGs) to be performed independent of 
the 24-hour endurance test. The TSs currently incorporate by 
referencing Regulatory Guide 1.108, the requirement that the tests be 
performed in a certain sequence, the 24-hour endurance test first, 
followed immediately by the hot restart sequence loading test. The 
proposed change consists of a footnote added to Specification 
4.15.1.B.3 which states that the hot restart sequence loading test need 
not be performed immediately following the 24-hour endurance test, but 
shall be performed within 5 minutes of shutting down the EDG after it 
has operated for a minimum of 2 hours between 3600 and 4000 KW. In 
addition, statements are added to the Bases in Section 4.15 to note 
this change to the required testing.
    10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) specifies that the Commission may, where exigent 
circumstances exist, allow less than 30 days for public comment. 
Exigent circumstances have been found to exist for this proposed 
amendment. The licensee identified the emergency diesel generator 
testing as an issue of noncompliance with the TSs on June 12, 1995, 
during a review of another license amendment request. Changes to the 
EDG test procedure made during preparations for the dual unit outage 
(DUO) of fall 1993 allowed the hot restart sequence loading test to be 
performed independently of the 24-hour endurance run. These tests were 

[[Page 34309]]
performed on all 5 EDGs during the DUO and repeated for the 2A and 2B 
EDGs during the Unit 2 refueling outage (RFO) in 1995. When this 
noncompliance was identified, both units were at 100% power. The 
licensee requested and was granted a Notice of Enforcement Discretion 
(NOED) verbally on June 13, 1995. The written request for the NOED and 
a request for a license amendment were submitted on June 14, 1995. To 
restore compliance with the TSs as quickly as possible and maintain 
public participation in the license amendment process as much as 
practical, the staff is exercising the exigent provisions of 10 CFR 
50.91(a)(6).
    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:

    1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of occurrence of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications will change 
the sequence of testing of EDGs that is performed on a refueling 
cycle basis. The proposed changes will decouple the hot restart test 
from the 24 hour EDG test. The proposed testing requirements satisfy 
the underlying purpose of the EDG hot restart test, in that the 
testing as proposed will verify the ability of the EDG to complete 
the start up sequence from an equilibrium temperature immediately 
following operation at full load (continuous rating) for a period of 
time long enough to stabilize operating temperature. Since the 
proposed changes impact only surveillance requirements used to 
periodically verify the operability of a required safety system, and 
since the proposed changes provide an equivalent level of testing 
and eliminate redundant testing, the proposed changes will not 
impact the operability or availability of a required system.
    Operation in accordance with the revised requirements will not 
increase the likelihood that a transient initiating event will occur 
since transients are initiated by equipment malfunction and/or 
catastrophic system failure. The revised requirements affect testing 
that is performed during refueling. Testing in accordance with the 
proposed requirements will not increase the probability of failure 
of the EDGs since the testing will provide an equivalent level of 
testing to verify the operability of the EDGs. In addition, failure 
of an EDG to start or failure of an EDG while operating is not 
assumed to be an initiating event of an accident considered in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
    Based on the above, operation in accordance with the proposed 
requirements will not significantly increase the probability of 
occurrence of any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed requirements will meet the underlying purpose of 
the existing testing requirements. The proposed testing will ensure 
the ability of the EDG to start from a hot condition in the unlikely 
event of an accident. The proposed testing requirements will only 
decouple the hot restart test of the EDG from the 24 hour test of 
the EDG that is performed during each refueling outage. Since the 
proposed changes will not adversely affect the operability or 
availability of the EDGs, the ability of the EDGs to operate and 
power equipment important to safety will not be impacted and the 
ability to mitigate the consequences of accidents previously 
evaluated will not be affected. Based on the preceding discussion, 
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated will not 
significantly increase.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not 
involve the addition of any new of [or] different types of safety 
related equipment, nor do they involve the operation of equipment 
required for safe operation of the facility in a manner different 
from those addressed in the UFSAR. No safety related equipment or 
function will be altered as a result of the proposed changes. Also, 
the procedures that govern normal operation and recovery from an 
accident are not affected by the proposed changes. The proposed 
changes only decouple the hot restart test of the EDG from the 24 
hour test of the EDG that is performed each refueling outage. 
Testing in accordance with the revised requirements will provide an 
equivalent level of confidence in the reliability of the EDG systems 
to complete the start up sequence from a hot condition. The proposed 
testing requirements satisfy the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.108 in 
that the testing requirements will ensure EDG operability and 
reliability. In addition, the proposed changes are consistent with 
the intent of the changes recommended by the NRC in Generic Letter 
93-05 and are consistent with the requirements of NUREG-1431. Since 
no new failure modes or mechanisms are introduced by the proposed 
changes, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident is 
not created.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Plant safety margins are established through LCOs (Limiting 
Condition for Operation), limiting safety system settings, and 
safety limits specified in the Technical Specifications.
    There will be no changes to either the physical design of the 
plant or to any of these settings or limits as a result of the 
proposed changes. The proposed testing requirements will only 
decouple the hot restart test of the EDG from the 24 hour test of 
the EDG that is performed during each refueling outage. Testing in 
accordance with the proposed requirements will verify the ability of 
the EDGs to complete the start up sequence from a hot condition as 
is intended by the recommended testing in Regulatory Guide 1.108. In 
addition, the proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the 
changes recommended by the NRC in Generic Letter 93-05. Since the 
proposed changes will not impact the availability or operability of 
the EDGs to perform their intended function and since no LCOs, 
safety limits, or safety system settings are affected by the 
proposed changes, there is no 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 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, 


[[Page 34310]]
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 July 31, 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 Comment Room, the Gelman Building, 
2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document 
room located at the Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County Street, 
Waukegan, Illinois 60085. 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 
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 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, 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, Director, Project Directorate 
III-2: 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 June 14, 1995, 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 Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County 
Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June 1995.


[[Page 34311]]

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Clyde Y. Shiraki,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-16109 Filed 6-29-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M