[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 44 (Monday, March 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11809-11811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5337]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-374]


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. 
NPF-18 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the licensee) for 
operation of LaSalle County Station Unit 2, located in LaSalle County, 
Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) to defer the required examination of weld RH-2005-29 until the 
next scheduled refueling outage or December 31, 2000, whichever is 
earlier.
    TS Section 3.4.8, ``Structural Integrity,'' requires the structural 
integrity of American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Class 1 
components to be maintained in accordance with the surveillance 
requirements of TS Section 4.4.8, ``Structural Integrity.'' TS Section 
4.4.8 invokes the surveillance requirements (SR) of TS SR 4.0.5. TS SR 
4.0.5.f requires that piping susceptible to intergranular stress 
corrosion cracking (IGSCC) be examined in accordance with the NRC staff 
positions on schedule, methods, personnel and sample expansion included 
in NRC Generic Letter (GL) 88-01, ``NRC Position on IGSCC in BWR 
Austenitic Stainless Steel Piping.''
    At 1527 hours Central Standard Time (CST) on February 17, 2000, the 
licensee entered TS SR 4.0.3 due to a missed TS surveillance 
requirement to examine weld RH-2005-29. TS SR 4.0.3 allows 24 hours to 
perform the surveillance or pursue enforcement discretion. Without 
enforcement discretion, LaSalle County Station Unit 2 would have been 
required to be in at least STARTUP within the next 7 hours, HOT 
SHUTDOWN within the following 6 hours, and COLD SHUTDOWN within the 
subsequent 24 hours, since the action statement of TS Section 3.4.8 
could not be complied with due to current plant conditions in 
accordance with TS Section 3.0.3. The licensee requested enforcement 
discretion from the requirements of TS 3.4.8 on February 18, 2000. The 
NRC verbally granted enforcement discretion at approximately 1130 hours 
CST on February 18, 2000, to be effective until a TS change is approved 
that would allow the examination of weld RH-2005-29 to be deferred 
until the next refueling outage. The written Notice of Enforcement 
Discretion (NOED) was issued by the NRC on February 23, 2000. The 
licensee requested that this proposed TS change be processed on an 
exigent basis consistent with the guidance provided in NRC 
Administrative Letter 95-05, ``Revisions to Staff Guidance for 
Implementing NRC Policy on Notices of Enforcement Discretion, Revision 
1.'' The licensee stated that the circumstances surrounding this 
request for exigent review were unavoidable and not created by a 
failure to make a timely application for a license amendment.
    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

[[Page 11810]]

(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:

    Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change represents a minimal increase in the 
probability of a pipe break resulting in a Loss-of-Coolant Accident 
(LOCA). The proposed change will not impact the source term used in 
the derivation of the LOCA dose consequences. Therefore, the 
consequences will remain unchanged since the resulting LOCA is 
bounded by the current analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed change does not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation and does not involve a physical modification to the plant. 
The proposed change does not introduce a new failure mode.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    Since the LOCA analysis remains unchanged, the fuel integrity 
margin, as expressed as Peak Cladding Temperature, is not affected. 
The change does not impact the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary 
Overpressure Analysis; therefore, the margin of safety for the 
Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary is not affected. The blowdown 
energy, resulting from a LOCA and the ability of the suppression 
chamber to maintain the margin of safety of the containment barrier 
are not affected.
    Therefore, the changes do not involve a significant reduction in 
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 considerations.
    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 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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 5, 2000, 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 maybe 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 the 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 partners to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the

[[Page 11811]]

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 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 General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Ms. Pamela B. Stroebel, P.O. Box 767, 
Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767, 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 21, 2000, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov)

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of February 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Donna M. Skay,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-5337 Filed 3-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P