[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61272-61274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29135]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-237, 50-249, 50-254, and 50-265]


Commonwealth Edison Company and Midamerican Energy 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DRP-19, DRP-25, DRP-29, and DRP-30 issued to Commonwealth Edison 
Company (ComEd, the licensee) for operation of the Dresden Nuclear 
Power Station, Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy County, Illinois and 
Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Dixon 
County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would close out additional open items 
identified in the NRC staff's review of the upgrade of the Dresden and 
Quad Cities Technical Specifications (TS) to the Standard Technical 
Specifications (STS) contained in NUREG-0123. The Technical 
Specification Upgrade Program (TSUP) is not a complete adaption of the 
STS. The TS upgrade focuses on (1) integrating additional information 
such as equipment operability requirements during shutdown conditions, 
(2) clarifying requirements such as limiting conditions for operation 
and action statements utilizing STS terminology, (3) deleting 
superseded requirements and modifications to the TS based on the 
licensee's responses to Generic Letter (GL), and (4) relocating 
specific items to more appropriate TS locations. The November 14, 1995, 
application proposed to close out all open items identified during the 
NRC's review as noted in previous NRC staff Safety Evaluations for 
previously provided submittals regarding the TSUP project.
    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:

    The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated 
because:
    In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of 
current requirements to a more generic format, or the addition of 
requirements which are based on the current safety analysis. 
Implementation of these changes will provide increased reliability 
of equipment assumed to operate in the current safety analysis, or 
provide continued assurance that specified parameters remain within 
their acceptance limits, and as such, will not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated 
accident.
    Some of the proposed changes represent minor curtailments of the 
current requirements which are based on generic guidance or 
previously approved provisions for other stations. The proposed 
amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Station's Technical 
Specifications are based on STS guidelines or later operating BWR 
plants' NRC accepted changes. Any deviations from STS requirements 
do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any 
previously evaluated accidents for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. 
The proposed amendment is consistent with the current safety 
analyses and has been previously determined to represent sufficient 
requirements for the assurance and reliability of equipment assumed 
to operate in the safety analysis, or provide continued assurance 
that specified parameters remain within their acceptance limits. As 
such, these changes will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    The associated systems related to this proposed amendment are 
not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence 
for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations; therefore, the probability of 
any accident previously evaluated is not increased by the proposed 
amendment. In addition, the proposed surveillance requirements for 
the proposed amendments to these systems are generally more 
prescriptive than the current requirements specified within the 
Technical Specifications. The additional surveillance requirements 
improve the reliability and availability of all affected systems and 
therefore, reduce the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated as the probability of the systems related to the TSUP open 
items outlined within the proposed Technical Specifications 
performing their intended function is increased by the additional 
surveillances.
    The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because:
    In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of 
current requirements to a more generic format, the addition of 
requirements which are based on the current safety analysis, and 
some minor curtailments of the current requirements which are based 
on generic guidance or previously approved provisions for other 
stations. These changes do not involve revisions to the design of 
the station. Some of the changes may involve revision in the 
operation of the station; however, these provide additional 
restrictions which are in accordance with the current safety 
analysis, or are to provide for additional testing or surveillances 
which will not introduce new failure mechanisms beyond those already 
considered in the current safety analyses.
    The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Station's 
Technical Specification is based on STS guidelines or later 
operating BWR plants' NRC accepted changes. The proposed amendment 
has been reviewed for acceptability at the Dresden and Quad Cities 
Nuclear Power Stations considering similarity of system or component 
design versus the STS or later operating BWRs.
    Any deviations from STS requirements do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously 
evaluated for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. No new modes of 
operation are introduced by the proposed changes. Surveillance 
requirements are changed to reflect improvements in technique, 
frequency of performance or operating experience at later plants. 
Proposed changes to action statements in many places add 
requirements that are not in the present technical specifications. 
The proposed changes maintain at least the present level of 
operability. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    The associated systems related to this proposed amendment are 
not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence 
for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. In addition, the proposed 
surveillance requirements for affected systems associated with the 
TSUP open items are generally more prescriptive than the current 
requirements specified within the Technical Specifications; 
therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety because:
    In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of 
current 

[[Page 61273]]
requirements to a more generic format, the addition of requirements 
which are based on the current safety analysis, and some minor 
curtailments of the current requirements which are based on generic 
guidance or previously approved provisions for other stations. Some 
of the latter individual items may introduce minor reductions in the 
margin of safety when compared to the current requirements. However, 
other individual changes are the adoption of new requirements which 
will provide significant enhancement of the reliability of the 
equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis, or provide 
enhanced assurance that specified parameters remain within their 
acceptance limits. These enhancements compensate for the individual 
minor reductions, such that taken together, the proposed changes 
will not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications 
implements present requirements, or the intent of present 
requirements in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the STS. 
Any deviations from STS requirements do not significantly reduce the 
margin of safety for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. The proposed 
changes are intended to improve readability, usability, and the 
understanding of technical specification requirements while 
maintaining acceptable levels of safe operation. The proposed 
changes have been evaluated and found to be acceptable for use at 
Dresden or Quad Cities based on system design, safety analysis 
requirements and operational performance. Since the proposed changes 
are based on NRC accepted provisions at other operating plants that 
are applicable at Dresden or Quad Cities and maintain necessary 
levels of system or component reliability, the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Stations will 
not reduce the availability of systems associated with the TSUP open 
items when required to mitigate accident conditions; therefore, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant 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 December 28, 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 Morris Area Public Library District, 604 
Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for the Dresden Station and Dixon 
Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad Cities 
Station. 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 
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 

[[Page 61274]]
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 
60603, 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 November 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 rooms located at the Morris Area Public Library 
District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for the Dresden Station 
and Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad 
Cities Station.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert M. Pulsifer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-29135 Filed 11-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P