[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14735-14737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8005]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-237]


Commonwealth Edison 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 No. 
DPR-19, issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee), 
for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2, located in 
Grundy County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would reflect a change in the Dresden, Unit 
2, minimum critical power ratio (MCPR) Safety Limit and revise 
footnotes in Technical Specifications (TS) Section 5.3, to allow the 
use of Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) ATRIUM-9B fuel.
    This request for amendment was submitted under exigent 
circumstances to support Dresden, Unit 2, Cycle 16, operation which is 
scheduled to begin on April 12, 1998. The licensee had submitted an 
application for TS amendments on August 29, 1997, (published on January 
14, 1998 at 63 FR 227) citing SPC Topical for Revised ANFB Correlation 
Uncertainty, ANF-1125(P), Supplement 1, Appendix D, to allow the use of 
SPC ATRIUM-9B fuel. However, the need for additional information has 
delayed the review of this topical report. To ensure that use of 
ATRIUM-9B fuel is approved in time for the scheduled Unit 2 startup, 
ComEd determined that it would submit this one-time cycle-specific 
amendment request proposing an interim conservative approach to 
calculating the MCPR Safety Limit. The time necessary for ComEd to 
develop this TS request would not allow the normal 30-day period for 
public comment to support Dresden, Unit 2, startup on April 12, 1998. 
However, should startup on Dresden, Unit 2, be delayed enough to allow 
the normal 30-day period for public comment, this amendment will not be 
issued until expiration of the normal 30-day period for public comment.
    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 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:
    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. This change does 
not affect the operability of plant systems, nor does it compromise 
any fuel performance limits.

Revision to Cycle Specific Footnotes for Dresden 2 Cycle 16 Operation 
With ATRIUM-9B

    The revisions to the footnotes in [Technical Specification] 
Section 5.3 have no implications for accident analysis or plant 
operations. The purpose of the revisions to the footnotes is to 
allow operation of Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 with an interim 
conservative approach to calculating the MCPR Safety Limit. This is 
the same approach that was NRC approved for use for Dresden Unit 3 
Cycle 15 and Quad Cities Unit 2 Cycle 15. The Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 
16 MCPR Safety Limit was calculated using an interim additive 
constant uncertainty. The MCPR Safety Limit is used in the 
determination of the cycle's MCPR Operating Limit. The MCPR 
Operating Limit ensures that the MCPR Safety Limit is not violated 
for any anticipated operational occurrence. This revision does not 
affect any plant equipment or processes; therefore, there is no 
alteration in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Revision to the MCPR Safety Limit

    Changing the MCPR Safety Limit for Dresden Unit 2 from 1.08 to 
1.09 will not increase the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated. Additionally, operational MCPR limits will be applied 
that will ensure the MCPR Safety Limit is not violated during all 
modes of operation and anticipated operational occurrences. Changing 
the MCPR Safety Limit will not alter any physical systems or 
operating procedures. The Dresden Unit 2 MCPR Safety Limit is set to 
1.09, which is a critical power

[[Page 14736]]

ratio value where less than 0.1% of the rods in the core are 
expected to experience transition boiling. This application for 
amendment does not change the criterion of ensuring that less than 
0.1% of the rods in the core are calculated to experience transition 
boiling when the core is at the MCPR Safety Limit. Therefore, the 
probability or consequences of an accident 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 to the plant configuration or changes in allowable 
modes of operation. Other than the use of a full reload of ATRIUM-9B 
fuel in Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 in Modes 1 and 2, this Technical 
Specification submittal does not involve any modifications to the 
plant configuration or allowable modes of operation. The operation 
with a full reload of ATRIUM-9B was previously approved for Dresden 
Unit 3 Cycle 15. The ATRIUM-9B fuel is compatible with the existing 
9x9-2 fuel in the Dresden Unit 2 core. No new precursors of an 
accident are created and no new or different kinds of accidents are 
created. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

Revision To Cycle Specific Footnotes for Dresden 2 Cycle 16 Operation 
With ATRIUM-9B

    The revision to the cycle specific footnotes in Section 5.3 is 
necessary to allow operation of Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16. This 
revision will not alter any plant systems, equipment or physical 
conditions of the site. Revising the footnotes in Section 5.3 allows 
operation with a reload of ATRIUM-9B in Modes 1 and 2 for Unit 2 
Cycle 16, which has previously been approved for Dresden Unit 3 
Cycle 15. This revision is based on the fact that an interim 
conservative additive constant uncertainty has been used to 
calculate the Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 MCPR Safety Limit. NRC 
approval of this interim approach in determining the Dresden Unit 2 
Cycle 16 MCPR Safety Limit will ensure that fuel limits are 
determined and cycle specific analyses are performed for Dresden 
Unit 2 Cycle 16 utilizing NRC approved methods. Therefore, no new or 
different kinds of accidents are created from this revision.

Revision to the MCPR Safety Limit

    Changing the MCPR Safety Limit will not create the possibility 
of a new accident from an accident previously evaluated. This change 
will not alter or add any new equipment or change plant modes of 
operation. The MCPR Safety Limit is established to ensure that 99.9% 
of the rods avoid transition boiling. The new MCPR Safety Limit for 
Dresden Unit 2, 1.09, is greater than the current value of 1.08 and 
is consistent with MCPR Safety Limit calculations in support of 
Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 operation. Therefore, no new accidents are 
created that are different from those previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety for 
the following reasons:

Revision to Cycle Specific Footnotes for Dresden 2 Cycle 16 Operation 
With ATRIUM-9B

    The results of the analyses for Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 verify 
that, with an interim additive constant uncertainty, an MCPR Safety 
Limit of 1.09 is supportable with less then 0.1% of the rods 
predicted to experience transition boiling. Since there is 
sufficient margin to the amount of rods predicted to experience 
transition boiling, and a conservative interim approach has been 
used to calculate the additive constant uncertainty, removing the 
footnotes to enable Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16 to operate with ATRIUM-
9B fuel will not reduce the margin of safety.

Revision to the MCPR Safety Limit

    Changing the MCPR Safety Limit for Dresden Unit 2 will not 
involve any reduction in margin of safety. The MCPR Safety Limit 
provides a margin of safety by ensuring that less than 0.1% of the 
rods are expected to be in transition boiling if the MCPR Safety 
Limit is not violated. The proposed Technical Specification 
amendment to change the MCPR Safety Limit to 1.09 supports operation 
of Dresden Unit 2 Cycle 16. SPC used the ANFB critical power 
correlation with an interim ATRIUM-9B additive constant uncertainty 
to perform the MCPR Safety Limit calculations.
    Because a conservative method is used to apply the ATRIUM-9B 
additive constant uncertainty in the MCPR Safety Limit calculation, 
a decrease in the margin to safety will not occur due to changing 
the MCPR Safety Limit. The revised Dresden Unit 2 MCPR Safety Limit 
will ensure the appropriate level of fuel protection. Additionally, 
operational limits will be established based on the proposed Dresden 
Unit 2 MCPR Safety Limit to ensure that the MCPR Safety Limit is not 
violated during all modes of operation including anticipated 
operational occurrences. This will ensure that the fuel design 
safety criterion of more than 99.9% of the fuel rods avoiding 
transition boiling during normal operation as well as during any 
anticipated operational occurrence is met.

    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 by close of business (4:15 p.m. 
EST) 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 amendment 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 amendment before the expiration of 
the 14-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. 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 6D59, 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 April 27, 1998, 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 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

[[Page 14737]]

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 
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 the amendment is 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 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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date.
    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 March 19, 1998, 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 23rd day of March, 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Lawrence W. Rossbach,
Project Manager Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-8005 Filed 3-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P