[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10753-10756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3950]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License 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-11 and DPR-18, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC, or 
the licensee, formerly Commonwealth Edison Company), for operation of 
the

[[Page 10754]]

LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LaSalle), respectively, located 
in LaSalle County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment, requested by application dated March 3, 
2000, as supplemented by letters dated March 24, June 5, July 18, July 
31, September 1, September 22, October 5, October 9, November 20, 
November 30, and December 18, 2000, would be a full conversion from the 
current Technical Specifications (CTS) to a set of improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) based on NUREG-1434, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--General Electric Plants, BWR/6,'' Revision 1, dated 
April 1995, and NUREG-1433, ``Standard Technical Specifications--
General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 1, dated April 1995. NUREG-
1434 and NUREG-1433 have been developed by the Commission's staff 
through working groups composed of both Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) staff members and industry representatives, and has been endorsed 
by the staff as part of an industry-wide initiative to standardize and 
improve the Technical Specifications (TS) for nuclear power plants. As 
part of this submittal, the licensee has applied the criteria contained 
in the Commission's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specification 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (Final Policy Statement),'' 
published in the Federal Register on July 22, 1993 (58 FR 39132), to 
the CTS, and, using NUREG-1434 and NUREG-1433 as a basis, proposed a 
conversion to ITS for LaSalle. The criteria in the Final Policy 
Statement were subsequently added to 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical 
Specifications,'' in a rule change that was published in the Federal 
Register on July 19, 1995 (60 FR 36953). The rule change became 
effective on August 18, 1995.
    The March 3, 2000, application, as supplemented, requested the 
conversion to ITS of six EGC stations, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, and Quad Cities 
Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2. Attachment 1 to the March 3, 
2000, application describes the structure of the application, and 
Enclosure B contains the LaSalle-specific changes.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into 
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, relocation changes, more restrictive changes, 
and less restrictive changes.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-1434 
and NUREG-1433 and does not involve technical changes to the existing 
TS. The proposed changes include: (a) Identifying plant-specific 
wording for system names, etc., (b) changing the wording of 
specification titles in the CTS to conform to STS, (c) splitting up 
requirements that are currently grouped, or combining requirements that 
are currently in separate specifications, (d) deleting specifications 
whose applicability has expired, and (e) wording changes that are 
consistent with the CTS but that more clearly or explicitly state 
existing requirements. Such changes are administrative in nature and do 
not impact initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of 
accident or transient events.
    Relocation changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables 
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. Relocated changes 
are those CTS requirements that do not satisfy or fall within any of 
the four criteria specified in the Commission's policy statement and 
may be relocated to appropriate licensee-controlled documents.
    The licensee's application of the screening criteria to LaSalle is 
described in Volume 1 of Enclosure B to the March 3, 2000, submittal. 
The affected structures, systems, components, or variables are not 
assumed to be initiators of analyzed events and are not assumed to 
mitigate accident or transient events. The requirements and 
surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or 
variables will be relocated from the TS to administratively controlled 
documents such as the Quality Assurance Program, the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the ITS Bases, the Technical 
Requirements Manual (TRM) (that is incorporated by reference in the 
UFSAR), the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose 
Calculation Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing (IST) Program, the 
Inservice Inspection (ISI) Program, or other licensee-controlled 
documents. Changes made to these documents will be made pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.59 or other appropriate control mechanisms, and may be made 
without prior NRC review and approval. In addition, the affected 
structures, systems, components, or variables are addressed in existing 
surveillance procedures that are also subject to 10 CFR 50.59. These 
proposed changes will not impose or eliminate any requirements.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, and components described in 
the safety analyses.
    Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed, relocated or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility 
is provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are 
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to 
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TS may be 
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to 
individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) 
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from 
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution 
of the Owners Groups' comments on the Improved Standard Technical 
Specifications. Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1434 and NUREG-
1433 were reviewed by the staff and found to be acceptable because they 
are consistent with current licensing practices and NRC regulations. 
The licensee's design will be reviewed to determine if the specific 
design basis and licensing basis are consistent with the technical 
basis for the model requirements in NUREG-1434 and NUREG-1433, thus, 
providing a basis for these revised TS, or if relaxation of the 
requirements in the CTS is warranted based on the justification 
provided by the licensee.
    These administrative, relocation, more restrictive, and less 
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in 
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an 
analyzed accident or transient event.
    In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are differences to the 
requirements in both the CTS and the Standard Technical Specifications 
(NUREG-1434 and NUREG-1433), and changes that are in addition to those 
changes that are needed to meet the overall purpose of the conversion. 
These proposed changes are as follows:
    1. The test interval of certain surveillance requirements is 
changed from 18 months to 24 months to permit

[[Page 10755]]

a longer fuel cycle. Justification for the proposed change follows the 
guidance of Generic Letter 91-04, ``Changes in Technical Specification 
Surveillance Intervals to Accommodate a 24-Month Fuel Cycle,'' and 
includes a revision to the instrument setpoint methodology.
    2. The required minimum temperature of the standby liquid control 
system pump suction piping (CTS 4.1.5.1.2) is increased from 60  deg.F 
to 68  deg.F, which is consistent with the temperature/concentration 
limits (in CTS Figure 3.1.5-2) at the maximum allowed sodium 
pentaborate concentration.
    3. The requirements in CTS 4.3.7.5 are changed to allow 6 hours to 
perform surveillance testing of the post-accident monitoring 
instrumentation channels prior to entering action statements.
    4. The requirements in CTS 4.3.7.4 are changed to allow 6 hours to 
perform surveillance testing of the remote shutdown monitoring system 
instrumentation channels prior to entering action statements.
    5. The detailed list of the remote shutdown monitoring system 
instrumentation that is required to be operable (CTS 3.3.7.4) is 
relocated to the TRM.
    6. The frequency for determining reactor coolant system leakage 
(CTS 4.4.3.2.1) is changed from 8 to 12 hours, which is consistent with 
the Generic Letter 88-01, Supplement 1, requirements to perform the 
surveillance once every shift, not to exceed 12 hours.
    7. The requirements in CTS 4.4.3.1 are changed to allow a channel 
of leakage detection system to be inoperable for up to 6 hours for the 
performance of required surveillances provided the other leakage 
detection system instrumentation is operable.
    8. The minimum pressure at which the automatic depressurization 
system is required to be operable (CTS 3.5.1) is increased from 122 
psig to 150 psig.
    9. The requirements (CTS 4.6.1.1) are changed to allow 
administrative means of verifying air lock door position in areas that 
are inaccessible due to high radiation or inerting.
    10. The CTS 4.6.1.1 requirement that the excess flow check valves 
must ``check flow'' is changed to require that the valves ``actuate to 
their isolation position.''
    11. The requirements in CTS 3.8.1.1 are changed to impose a maximum 
restoration time of ``10 days from discovery of failure to meet LCO'' 
for multiple concurrent inoperable AC sources.
    12. The required frequency for performing diesel generator fuel oil 
transfer pump testing (CTS 4.8.1.1.2.a.3) is changed from 31 days to 92 
days, consistent with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 
Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI, requirements for similar 
pumps.
    13. The required battery voltage for the 250 volt battery (CTS 
4.7.3.d.1.d) is increased from 250 volts to 256 volts, which is 
consistent with the 2.2 volts/cell requirement for the 125-volt 
battery.
    14. The CTS 4.8.2.3.2 requirements will be modified to allow a 
modified performance discharge test to be used instead of a service 
test or a performance discharge test, which is consistent with IEEE-
450.
    15. The duration of the battery charger capacity test (CTS 
4.8.2.3.2.c.4) is reduced from 8 hours to 4 hours.
    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.
    By March 19, 2001, 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 Part 2.714 which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland 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 Part 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.
    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,

[[Page 10756]]

Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications 
Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland, 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 Mr. Edward J. 
Cullen, Vice President, General Council, 300 Exelon Way, Kennett 
Square, Pennsylvania 19348, 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 Parts 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may 
issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior 
to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further 
notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant 
hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 3, 2000, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 24, June 5, July 18, July 31, September 1, 
September 22, October 5, October 9, November 20, November 30, and 
December 18, 2000, which is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 13th day of February, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-3950 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P