[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8998-9000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4855]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249]


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. 
DPR-19 and DPR-25, 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.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specifications (TS) 
3.7.K, ``Suppression Chamber,'' and

[[Page 8999]]

3.8.C, ``Ultimate Heat Sink,'' to restore the maximum allowable water 
temperature for the Containment Cooling Service Water inlet and the 
Suppression Pool. This change is required to restore the capability to 
operate the facility during the warmer months of the year.
    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:

    (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because of the 
following:
    The proposed License Amendment presents the results of new 
safety analyses which were performed using revised values for 
certain system and equipment performance parameters that more 
accurately reflect the Dresden Station design. The changes restore 
operating limits on the Ultimate Heat Sink and Suppression Pool 
average water temperature consistent with their design and which 
will permit operation of the facility during the warmer months of 
the year. The proposed changes directly effect the initial 
conditions assumed in the safety analyses for the plant, however new 
analyses demonstrate that the facility will continue to respond in a 
manner consistent with the existing safety analyses. The methods for 
demonstrating the adequacy of the existing design are proposed for 
change and the amendment details the basis for acceptance of the new 
methods and parameters proposed.
    No substantive physical changes to the facility are proposed. 
The plant will continue to operate in a manner consistent with its 
original design and the consequences of previously analyzed 
accidents are not significantly affected by this proposed License 
Amendment.
    The proposed changes do not effect systems which are 
contributors to initiating events for previously evaluated accidents 
and therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated 
is not increased by the proposed amendment.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
    The proposed license amendment for Dresden Station does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than 
previously evaluated for Dresden Station. The proposed changes 
merely present and incorporate the results of new analyses which 
demonstrate the ability of the facility to operate consistent with 
the safety analyses. No substantive physical changes to the facility 
are proposed. No substantially new modes of operation have been 
identified or are introduced by the proposed changes. The changes to 
plant procedures which are required to support the proposed change 
are consistent with the operating practices and procedures currently 
used at the facility.
    Based on this, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
because:
    The proposed license amendment does not significantly effect the 
margin of safety. The proposed changes merely incorporate new 
analysis methods and results into the design basis for the facility, 
as well as restore the limits on UHS [ultimate heat sink] average 
water temperature and Suppression Pool maximum average water 
temperature to the limits which have historically existed at the 
facility. The water temperature limits are changed to permit 
continued operation of the facility during the warmer months of the 
year. The new analyses performed include these higher water 
temperature limits as initial conditions, and utilize new methods 
and more representative system parameters than existed in previously 
utilized analytical models of the effected plant systems. The new 
methods of analysis include modeling of the containment pressure 
following certain postulated limiting design basis accidents in a 
time-dependent manner to permit realistic determination of actual 
pressures which would be expected, as well as the use of improved 
flow and heat transfer models for determining heat removal rates. An 
improved representation of actual post-shutdown reactor decay heat 
is also incorporated into the new analyses.
    The new analyses demonstrate that with the proposed changes to 
the Technical Specifications and the more realistic representation 
of system parameters, Dresden Station will operate in a manner 
consistent with the previously existing safety analyses. The 
proposed changes to the way in which the facility is modeled provide 
additional margin with regard to some key post-accident parameters, 
such as postulated Peak Clad Temperature which is demonstrated to be 
reduced significantly.
    Based on operation of the facility consistent with its 
historical limits, consistent with the limits of the existing safety 
analyses results, the improved realism and more representative 
models of actual postulated plant conditions, and the resulting 
improvements in key post-accident safety limits, this change does 
not significantly effect 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 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 March 31, 1997 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

[[Page 9000]]

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 Morris Area Public 
Library District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450. 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 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 20555-0001, 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 amendment dated February 17, 1997, 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 Morris Area Public Library 
District, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois 60450.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of February 1997.

    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. 97-4855 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P