[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19141-19142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10072]


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

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 amendments 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 amendments would remove the Main Steam Line Radiation 
Monitor High scram and the Main Steam Line Tunnel Radiation High input 
to the Main Steam Line Isolation function requirement from the 
Technical Specifications (TS). The proposed changes are a result of a 
Boiling Water Reactor Owners Group (BWROG) initiative to minimize 
inadvertent scrams and Main Steam Isolation Valve closure due to 
erroneous radiation monitor actuation.
    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) Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because of the 
following:
    This amendment request proposes to remove the existing [Main 
Steam Line Radiation Monitor] MSLRM scram and the MSLRM [Main Steam 
Line] MSL Valve closure signal. The purpose of the MSLRM High scram 
and the MSL Valve closure signal is to mitigate the radiological 
effects of a fuel element failure. These functions do not serve as 
initiators for any of the accidents evaluated in chapter 15 of the 
[Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] UFSAR. Removal of these 
functions will not increase the probability of any of the accidents 
previously evaluated.
    The radiological effects of a [Control Rod Drop Accident] CRDA 
have been evaluated by the BWROG in their Safety Analysis Report 
NEDO--31400. The BWROG report was evaluated by the NRC and found 
acceptable by letter dated May 15, 1991. The NRC Safety Evaluation 
Report accepting the BWROG analysis required licensees to 
demonstrate that the assumptions of the BWROG analysis were bounding 
on their plants. ComEd's Dresden Station has evaluated the BWROG 
analysis for applicability on Dresden Units 2 and 3.
    The BWROG analysis demonstrates that operation of Units 2 and 3 
with the proposed amendment does not represent a significant 
increase in the consequences of a CRDA.
    Therefore, operation of Dresden Units 2 and 3 under the proposed 
amendment does not represent a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    (2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
    This amendment request proposes to remove the existing MSLRM 
High scram and the MSL Valve closure input from the MSL Tunnel 
Radiation High signal. Removal of these functions does not represent 
a change in operating parameters for Dresden Units 2 and 3. Removal 
of these functions does not add any additional hardware and does not 
represent any new failure modes. Operation of Dresden Units 2 and 3 
under the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different type of accident previously evaluated.
    (3) Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety 
because:
    The requested amendment proposes to eliminate the MSLRM High 
scram and the MSL Valve Closure input from the MSL Tunnel Radiation 
High signal. Operation under the proposed amendment will not change 
any plant operation parameters, nor any protective system setpoints 
other than removal of these functions. The BWROG Safety Analysis 
Report had demonstrated that the consequences of the CRDA without 
the MSLRM High scram and MSL Valve Closure signal from the MSL 
Tunnel Radiation monitor does not result in doses which are not well 
within guidelines of 10 CFR part 100 limits. Therefore, the proposed 
changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Guidance has been provided in ``Final Procedures and Standards 
on No Significant Hazards Considerations,'' Final Rule, 51 FR 7744, 
for the application of standards to license change requests for 
determination of the existence of significant hazards 
considerations. This document provides examples of amendments which 
are and are not considered likely to involve significant hazards 
considerations.
    This proposed amendment does not involve any irreversible 
changes, a significant relaxation of the criteria used to establish 
safety limits, a significant relaxation of the bases for the 
limiting safety system settings or a significant relaxation of the 
bases for the limiting conditions for operations. Therefore, based 
on the guidance provided in the Federal Register and the criteria 
established in 10 CFR 50.92(c), the proposed change does not 
constitute a significant hazards consideration.

    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,

[[Page 19142]]

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 May 19, 1997, 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 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 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 amendments.
    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 March 5, 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 14th day of April 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. 97-10072 Filed 4-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P