[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47966-47968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23196]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304]
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 License Nos.
DPR-39 and DPR-48 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the
licensee) for operation of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and
2, located in Lake County, Illinois.
The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification
Section 4.3.1.B.4.A.10.a which provides the acceptance criteria for
steam generator tube repairs by adding a footnote which references the
cleanliness and nondestructive examination requirements as described in
CEN-629-P, Revision 00, ``Repair of Westinghouse Series 44 and 51 Steam
Generator Tubes Using Leak Tight Sleeves.''
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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
amendments requested involve 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 change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
[[Page 47967]]
The proposed amendment continues to allow the ABB/CE Tungsten
Inert Gas (TIG) welded tubesheet sleeves to be used as an alternate
tube repair method for Zion Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators along
with the process improvements which are proposed to be footnoted
within the Technical Specifications. The sleeve configuration was
designed and analyzed in accordance with the criteria of Regulatory
Guide (RG) 1.121 and Section III of the ASME Code and is unaffected
by the enhancements that will be implemented. Fatigue and stress
analyses of the sleeved tube assemblies as described in the
currently approved Topical Report, CEN-331-P are unaffected by the
enhancements being proposed.
Mechanical testing which has shown that the structural strength
of the sleeves under normal, faulted, and upset conditions is within
the acceptable limits is unaffected by the enhancements being
proposed. Leakage rate testing for the tube sleeves which has
demonstrated that primary to secondary leakage is not expected
during any plant condition is unaffected by the enhancements being
proposed. The consequences of leakage through the sleeved region of
the tube, including the proposed enhancements, is bounded by the
existing steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) analysis included in
the Zion Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
The proposed TS change reflects enhancements to the
installation/inspection process which is identified in the currently
licensed Topical Report CEN-331-P, Revision 1-P. These enhancements
do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The new Topical Report specifies that proper
cleaning and inspection of the weld zone be performed prior to
sleeve installation and eddy current testing has been added as part
of the sleeve acceptance criteria to ensure the structural integrity
of the tube sleeve weld joint.
The proposed TS change which supports the installation and NDE
enhancements of the ABB/CE TIG welded sleeves does not adversely
impact any previously evaluated design basis accident. Installation
of the sleeves, with the proposed enhancements, can be used to
repair degraded tubes by returning the condition of the tubes to
their original design basis condition for tube integrity and leak
tightness during all plant conditions. Therefore the currently
approved sleeving process with the proposed enhancements will not
increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously
evaluated.
Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The implementation of the proposed sleeving process will not
introduce significant or adverse changes to the plant design basis.
The current stress and fatigue analyses of the repair identified in
Topical Report CEN-331-P have shown the ASME Code and RG 1.121
allowable values are met and are unaffected by the proposed
enhancements. The current TIG welded sleeving design with the
proposed enhancements will continue to maintain overall tube bundle
structural and leakage integrity at a level consistent with that of
the originally supplied tubing. Leak and mechanical testing of the
sleeves, are unaffected by the proposed enhancements and continue to
support the conclusions that the sleeve retains both structural and
leakage integrity during all operating and accident conditions.
Repair of a tube with a sleeve, utilizing the proposed enhancements,
does not provide a mechanism that results in an accident outside of
the area affected by the sleeve.
The proposed change to implement specific sections from Topical
Report CEN-629-P will not create a new or different type of
accident. The change only reflects enhancements to the currently
licensed installation/inspection process and would not change or
impact any hypothetical accident previously discussed.
Any hypothetical accident as a result of potential tube or
sleeve degradation in the repaired portion of the tube is bounded by
the existing SGTR analysis. The sleeve design does not affect any
other component or location of the tube outside of the immediate
area repaired.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different type of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
The currently licensed TIG welded sleeving repair of degraded
steam generator tubes has been shown by analysis to restore the
integrity of the tube bundle to its original design basis condition.
By implementing the proposed enhancement the consistent quality of
the upper sleeve weld has increased reducing the potential for
rework and reducing the potential for leaving a weld indication in
service.
The proposed change does not involve a reduction to the margin
of safety. These enhancements which are identified from specific
sections of the Topical Report CEN-629-P reflect enhancements to the
installation/inspection process which is currently licensed by the
staff. These enhancements would not have any adverse effects on the
previously evaluated design transient or accident analysis. The
enhancements simply specify cleaning and inspection methods of the
sleeve-tube upper weld zone which will ensure the integrity of the
pressure boundary.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in the margin of safety.
Based on the preceding analysis it is concluded that operation
of Zion Units 1 and 2, in accordance with the proposed amendment,
does not increase the probability of an accident previously
evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, nor reduce
any margins to plant safety. Therefore, this proposed amendment does
not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR
50.92.
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
amendments requested involve 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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration
of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is
that the amendments involve 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 Chief, Rules
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 October 11, 1996, the licensee may file a request for a hearing
with respect to issuance of the amendments 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
[[Page 47968]]
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 Waukegan Public Library,
128 N. 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 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 amendments 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 amendments requested involve
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the
amendments and make them 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 amendments requested involve
a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place
before the issuance of any amendments.
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 20555-0001, 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 20555-0001, 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 amendments dated September 3, 1996, 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 N.
County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of September 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Donna M. Skay,
Acting Project Manager Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-23196 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P