[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10756-10758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3951]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249]


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-19 and DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC, or 
the licensee, formerly Commonwealth Edison Company), for operation of 
the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (Dresden), 
respectively, located in Grundy 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-1433, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications--General Electric Plants, BWR/4,'' Revision 1, dated 
April 1995. NUREG-1433 has 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-1433 as a basis, proposed a conversion to ITS 
for Dresden. 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 A contains the Dresden-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-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 Dresden is 
described in Volume 1 of Enclosure A 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

[[Page 10757]]

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-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-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-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 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 requirements in CTS 4.2.F are changed to allow 6 hours to 
perform surveillance testing of the post-accident monitoring 
instrumentation channels prior to entering action statements.
    3. The reactor power level at which the rod worth minimizer is 
required to be operable (CTS 3.3.L) is reduced from 20 percent to 10 
percent of rated thermal power.
    4. The requirements (CTS 3.9.G) for the reactor protection system 
electric power monitoring system assemblies to be operable in Modes 1, 
2, 3, and also Modes 4 and 5 with any control rod withdrawn, are 
changed to only include Modes 1 and 2, and also Mode 5 with any control 
rod withdrawn from a core cell containing one of more fuel assemblies, 
to coincide with the conditions where the safety function is required.
    5. The requirement (CTS 3.6.C Action 2) to trip one of the 
recirculation pumps when the speed mismatch is not within limits is 
replaced with a requirement to declare the loop with the low flow ``not 
in operation'' and take the required actions for that condition (e.g., 
use the more restrictive core power limits that are required for single 
loop operation).
    6. The frequency for monitoring primary containment sump flow rate 
(CTS 4.6.H.2) 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 CTS 3.5.A requirement to shutdown within 7 days when both 
low-pressure coolant injection subsystems are inoperable is being 
changed to require a shutdown in 72 hours.
    8. The required number of operable automatic depressurization 
system valves (CTS 3.5.A.4) is reduced from five to four, consistent 
with the safety analysis assumptions.
    9. The required volume of water in the condensate storage tank in 
Modes 4 and 5 (CTS 3.5.B.1.a.2, 3.5.B.2.b.2, and 3.5.C.2.c) is reduced 
from 140,000 gallons to 50,000 gallons.
    10. The CTS 4.7.D.4 requirement that the excess flow check valves 
must ``check flow'' is changed to require that the valves ``actuate to 
their isolation position.''
    11. The required spent fuel storage pool water level (CTS 3.10.H) 
is increased approximately 9 inches.
    12. The required load during the diesel generator surveillance 
tests (CTS 4.9.A.2.d, 4.9.A.8.c, and 4.9.A.8.h) is changed to permit 
the diesel generator to run from 90-100 percent of the continuous load 
rating instead of 95-100 percent of the continuous load rating.
    13. The required voltage during the diesel generator surveillance 
tests (CTS 4.9.A.2.c, 4.9.A.7, 4.9.A.8.b, 4.9.A.8.d.2, 4.9.A.8.e, 
4.9.A.8.f.2, and 4.9.A.8.h) is changed from 4160 plus or minus 420 
volts to 4160 plus or minus 208 volts.
    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

[[Page 10758]]

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, 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 Parts 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.
Lawrence W. Rossbach,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-3951 Filed 2-15-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P