[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 83 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23499-23501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-11120]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-254 and 50-265]


Commonwealth Edison company and Midamerican Energy 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-29 and DPR-30, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the 
licensee), for operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendments would reflect a change in the Quad Cities, 
Unit 2, Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) Safety Limit and add the 
Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) methodology for application of the 
Advanced Nuclear Fuel for Boiling Water Reactors (ANFB) Critical Power 
Correlation to coresident General Electric fuel for Quad Cities, Unit 
2, Cycle 15, to Technical Specification (TS) Section 6.9.A.6.b.
    This request for amendments was submitted under exigent 
circumstances to support Quad Cities, Unit 2, Cycle 15, operation which 
is scheduled to be on line May 19, 1997. On March 20, 1997, SPC 
determined the need for a larger data base for determining the additive 
constant uncertainty. The combined time necessary for SPC to develop 
the new data base and the time for ComEd to develop this TS request 
would not allow the normal 30-day period for public comment to support 
Quad Cities, Unit 2, startup.
    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 requested 
amendments 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 amendments 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:
    The probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the 
probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The 
consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the 
operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those 
consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC 
approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, 
transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed 
Technical Specifications amendment conservatively establishes the 
MCPR Safety Limit for Quad Cities Unit 2, such that the fuel is 
protected during normal operation and during any plant transients or 
anticipated operational occurrences. Additionally, methodologies are 
being added to the Section 6.9.A.6.b list of methodologies utilized 
in determining core operating limits.
    a. MCPR Safety Limit and MCPR Safety Limit Bases Change
    The probability of an evaluated accident is not increased by 
increasing the MCPR Safety Limit to 1.10 and changing the MCPR 
Safety Limit Bases. The change does not require any physical plant 
modifications, physically affect any plant components, or entail 
changes in plant operation. Therefore, no individual precursors of 
an accident are affected.
    This Technical Specification amendment proposes to change the 
MCPR Safety Limit to protect the fuel during normal operation as 
well as during any transients or anticipated operational 
occurrences. The method that is used to determine the ATRIUM-9B 
additive constant uncertainty is conservative, such that, the 
resulting MCPR Safety Limit is high enough to ensure that less than 
0.1% of the fuel rods are expected to experience boiling transition 
if the limit is not violated. Operational limits will be established 
based on the proposed MCPR Safety Limit to ensure that the MCPR 
Safety Limit is not violated during all modes of operation. This 
will ensure that the fuel design safety criteria, more than 99.9% of 
the fuel rods avoiding transition boiling during normal operation as 
well as anticipated operational occurrences, is met. The method for 
calculating an ATRIUM-9B additive constant uncertainty, is described 
in Reference 2 [SPC document, ANFB Critical Power Correlation 
Uncertainty For Limited Data Sets, ANF-1125(P), Supplement 1, 
Appendix D, Siemens Power Corporation--Nuclear Division, Submitted 
on April 18, 1997] and is based on an expanded pool of data for the 
ATRIUM-9B fuel design (527 data points). The additive constant 
uncertainty from Reference 2 is then used to determine the change 
from the additive constant uncertainty using the original pool of 
data (125 data points). This difference is conservatively doubled 
and added to the additive constant uncertainty using the original 
pool of data (125 data points). Reference 5 [Siemens Power 
Corporation letter, ``Interim Use of Increased ANFB Additive 
Constant Uncertainty'', HDC:97:033, H.D. Curet to Document Control 
Desk, April 18, 1997] documents the conservative interim approach of 
doubling the difference in additive constant uncertainties. The 
resulting additive constant uncertainty is used to determine the 
Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15 MCPR Safety Limit. Since the new MCPR 
Safety Limit was determined using a conservative ATRIUM-9B additive 
constant uncertainty, and the operability of plant systems designed 
to mitigate any consequences of accidents have not changed, the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not expected to 
increase.
    b. Addition of Siemens Power Corporation's (SPC) methodology for 
Application of the ANFB Critical Power Correlation to Coresident GE 
Fuel for Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15 to Section 6.9.A.6.b

[[Page 23500]]

    The probability of an evaluated accident is not increased by 
adding Reference 1 [ComEd letter, ``ComEd Response to NRC Staff 
Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding the Application 
of Siemens Power Corporation ANFB Critical Power Correlation to 
Coresident General Electric Fuel for LaSalle Unit 2 Cycle 8 and Quad 
Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15, NRC Docket No.'s 50-373/374 and 50-254/
265'', J.B. Hosmer to U.S. NRC, July 2, 1996, transmitting the 
topical report, Application of the ANFB Critical Power Correlation 
to Coresident GE Fuel for Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15, EMF-96-
051(P), Siemens Power Corporation--Nuclear Division, May 1996, and 
related information], to Section 6.9.A.6.b. Reference 1 describes 
the methodology used to determine the additive constants and the 
associated uncertainty of the Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15 GE9 and 
GE10 fuel for the ANFB critical power correlation. The additive 
constant and the associated uncertainties for the GE9 and GE10 fuel 
are used to calculate the MCPR Safety Limit, which in turn is used 
to establish the MCPR operating limit for Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 
15 operation. Therefore, adding Reference 1 to Section 6.9.A.6.b of 
the Technical Specifications updates the Reference list to include a 
methodology used for determining Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15 
operational limits.
    Adding Reference 1 to the Reference list in Section 6.9.A.6.b 
also will not increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated. Reference 1 determines the additive constants and the 
associated uncertainty for the GE fuel in Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 
15. It also provides input for determining the MCPR Safety Limit. 
Because Reference 1 contains conservative methods and calculations 
and because the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate 
any consequences of accidents have not changed, the consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated will not increase.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated:
    Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident would require the creation of one or more new precursors of 
that accident. New accident precursors may be created by 
modifications of the plant configuration, including changes in 
allowable modes of operation. This Technical Specification submittal 
does not involve any modifications of the plant configuration or 
allowable modes of operation. This Technical Specification submittal 
involves a) an added conservatism in the Quad Cities Unit 2 MCPR 
Safety Limit due to analytical changes and use of an expanded 
database, and b) an additional reference incorporated in Section 
6.9.A.6.b describing the methodology used to determine the additive 
constants and additive constant uncertainty for GE9 and GE10 fuel 
for Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15. Therefore, no new precursors of an 
accident are created and no new or different kinds of accidents are 
created.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for 
the following reasons:
    The MCPR Safety Limit provides a margin of safety by ensuring 
that less than 0.1% of the rods are expected to be in boiling 
transition if the MCPR limit is not violated. The proposed Technical 
Specification amendment reflects MCPR Safety Limit results from 
conservative calculations by SPC using the new ATRIUM-9B additive 
constant uncertainty. These new ATRIUM-9B additive constant 
uncertainty calculations are based on a larger pool of data than 
previous calculations (527 data points versus 125 data points). 
Additionally, the additive constant uncertainty resulting from 
statistical analyses of the larger pool of data is conservatively 
applied to calculate a new MCPR Safety Limit of 1.10, which is more 
restrictive than the current MCPR Safety Limit of 1.07.
    SPC has increased its ATRIUM-9B critical power test data base 
from 125 data points at 1000 psi with mass fluxes ranging from 0.5 
to 1.5 Mlb/hr-ft2, to 527 data points that cover a wider 
range of operating pressures, flows, and axial power shapes.
    The Experimental Critical Power Ration (ECPR) and the standard 
deviation of the ECPR for each of the 527 data points are 
statistically examined by an Analysis of Variance. The results of 
the Analysis of Variance of the Pressure Groups are a mean ECPR, a 
standard deviation of ECPR, degrees of freedom, and equivalent 
sample size.
    The overall uncertainty for CPR is statistically calculated 
using the standard deviation of the pooled data and the variance 
between the means associated with the axial power shapes. An upper 
95% confidence limit standard deviation is calculated based on Chi-
Square for the calculated degrees of freedom. This overall standard 
deviation in ECPR is converted to an additive constant uncertainty. 
This conversion is derived from the ratios of the ANFB correlation 
standard deviation to the additive constant standard deviation for 
the ATRIUM-9B data.
    This calculated additive constant uncertainty is not directly 
applied to the MCPR Safety Limit calculation. A conservative ATRIUM-
9B additive constant uncertainty is used to calculate a new MCPR 
Safety Limit for Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15.
    The difference is calculated between the additive constant 
uncertainties after and prior to the data set being expanded to 
include 527 points. This difference is then conservatively doubled 
and added to the additive constant uncertainty prior to the 
expansion of the data set (based on 125 data points).
    The resulting additive constant uncertainty, 0.029, is used to 
calculate a new MCPR Safety Limit value of 1.10 for Quad Cities Unit 
2 Cycle 15.
    Because a conservative method is used to apply the ATRIUM-9B 
additive constant uncertainty to the MCPR Safety Limit calculation, 
a decrease in the margin of safety will not occur due to changing 
the MCPR Safety Limit. The revised Safety Limit will ensure the 
appropriate level of fuel protection. Additionally, operational 
limits will be established based on the proposed MCPR Safety Limit 
to ensure that the MCPR Safety Limit is not violated during all 
modes of operation. This will ensure that the fuel design safety 
criteria, more than 99.9% of the fuel rods avoiding transition 
boiling during normal operation as well as anticipated operational 
occurrences, is met.
    The margin of safety is not decreased by adding the Reference to 
Section 6.9.A.6.b of Siemens Power Corporation's (SPC) methodology 
for application of the ANFB Critical Power Correlation to coresident 
GE Fuel for Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15. While this methodology is 
in review by the NRC, and pending approval for application to Quad 
Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15, it is the same methodology previously 
reviewed and approved for use at LaSalle Unit 2 (References 3 and 4) 
[ComEd letter, ``Application of Siemen's Power Corporation ANFB 
Critical Power Correlation to Coresident General Electric Fuel for 
LaSalle Unit 2 Cycle 8'', G.G, Benes to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, dated March 8, 1996, and NRC SER letter, ``Safety 
Evaluation for Topical Report EMF-96-021(P), Revision 1, 
`Application of the ANFB Critical Power Correlation to Coresident GE 
Fuel for LaSalle Unit 2 Cycle 8' (TAC No. M94964)'', D.M. Skay to I. 
Johnson, dated September 26, 1996.

    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 
requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 23501]]

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 30, 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 Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, 
Dixon, Illinois 61021. 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 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 the amendments are 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 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 April 21, 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 Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin 
Avenue, Dixon, Illinois 61021.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th 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. 97-11120 Filed 4-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P