[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5702-5703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2522]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265]


Commonwealth Edison Company and Midamerican Energy Company Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.60(a) for 
Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-29 and DPR-30, issued to 
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, or the licensee) for operation of 
the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Quad Cities), 
located in Cordova, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, requires that pressure-temperature (P-
T) limits be established for reactor pressure vessels (RPVs) during 
normal operating and hydrostatic or leak rate testing conditions. 
Specifically, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, states, ``The appropriate 
requirements on both the pressure-temperature limits and the minimum 
permissible temperature must be met for all conditions.'' Appendix G of 
10 CFR Part 50 specifies that the requirements for these limits are the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code (Code), Section XI, Appendix G Limits.
    To address provisions of amendments to the technical specifications 
(TS) P-T limits, the licensee requested in its submittal dated November 
12, 1999, that the staff exempt Quad Cities from application of 
specific requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.60(a) and Appendix 
G, and substitute use of ASME Code Cases N-588 and N-640. Code Case N-
588 permits the postulation of a circumferentially-oriented flaw (in 
lieu of an axially-oriented flaw) for the evaluation of the 
circumferential welds in RPV P-T limit curves. Code Case N-640 permits 
the use of an alternate reference fracture toughness (KIC 
fracture toughness curve instead of KIa fracture toughness 
curve) for reactor vessel materials in determining the P-T limits. 
Since the pressure stresses on a circumferentially-oriented flaw are 
lower than the pressure stresses on an axially-oriented flaw by a 
factor of 2, using Code Case N-588 for establishing the P-T limits 
would be less conservative than the methodology currently endorsed by 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G and, therefore, an exemption to apply the 
Code Case would be required by 10 CFR 50.60. Likewise, since the 
KIC fracture toughness curve shown in ASME Section XI, 
Appendix A, Figure A-2200-1 (the KIC fracture toughness 
curve) provides greater allowable fracture toughness than the 
corresponding KIa fracture toughness curve of ASME Section 
XI, Appendix G, Figure G-2210-1 (the KIa fracture toughness 
curve), using Code Case N-640 for establishing the P-T limits would be 
less conservative than the methodology currently endorsed by 10 CFR 
Part 50, Appendix G and, therefore, an exemption to apply the Code Case 
would also be required by 10 CFR 50.60. It should be noted that, 
although Code Case N-640 was incorporated into the ASME Code recently, 
an exemption is still needed because the proposed P-T limits (excluding 
Code Cases N-588 and N-640) are based on the 1989 edition of the ASME 
Code.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated November 12, 1999.

[[Page 5703]]

The Need for the Proposed Action

    ASME Code Case N-588 and Code Case N-640 are needed to revise the 
method used to determine the RCS P-T limits, since continued use of the 
present curves unnecessarily restricts the P-T operating window. Since 
the RCS P-T operating window is defined by the P-T operating and test 
limit curves developed in accordance with the ASME Section XI, Appendix 
G procedure, continued operation of Quad Cities with these P-T curves 
without the relief provided by ASME Code Case N-640 would unnecessarily 
require the RPV to maintain a temperature exceeding 212 degrees 
Fahrenheit in a limited operating window during the pressure test. 
Consequently, steam vapor hazards would continue to be one of the 
safety concerns for personnel conducting inspections in primary 
containment. Implementation of the proposed P-T curves, as allowed by 
ASME Code Case N-640, does not significantly reduce the margin of 
safety and would eliminate steam vapor hazards by allowing inspections 
in primary containment to be conducted at lower coolant temperature.
    In the associated exemption, the staff has determined that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the 
regulation will continue to be served by the implementation of these 
Code Cases.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the exemption described above would provide an 
adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the Quad Cities 
reactor vessels.
    The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological environmental impacts, the 
proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect 
nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impacts. 
Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological impacts associated 
with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Quad 
Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, dated September 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 28, 2000, the 
staff consulted with the Illinois State official, Frank Niziolek of the 
Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated November 12, 1999, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library 
component on the NRC Web site, http:\\www.nrc.gov (the Electronic 
Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anthony J. Mendiola,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-2522 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P