[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 164 (Thursday, August 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44382-44384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-21290]


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

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 Nos. 
DPR-19 and DPR-25, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC, or 
the licensee), for the operation of Dresden Nuclear Power Station, 
Units 2 and 3, respectively, located in Grundy County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment, requested by application dated September 
29, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated March 1 and August 13, 2001, 
would change the Technical Specifications (TS) to support a change in 
fuel vendors from Siemens Power Corporation to General Electric (GE) 
and a transition to the use of GE-14 fuel. The March 1 and August 13, 
2001, supplements each increased the scope of the September 29, 2000, 
application. The March 1, 2001, supplement increased the scope of the 
proposed amendment by requesting TS changes to (1) Increase the number 
of required automatic depressurization system (ADS) valves from four to 
five, (2) add surveillance requirements for the operability of the 
additional ADS valve, (3) change a surveillance requirement to verify 
the flow rate of two low-pressure coolant injection pumps instead of 
three pumps, consistent with the accident analyses, and (4) remove an 
allowance to continue operating for 72 hours if certain combinations of 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS) systems are inoperable. The August 
13, 2001, supplement further increased the scope of the proposed 
amendment by requesting changes to the TS allowable values for two ECCS 
functions, the containment spray time delay and the low-pressure 
coolant injection time delay. All of these changes support the 
transition to the use of GE-14 fuel. The changes proposed by the 
application dated September 29, 2000, were noticed in the Federal 
Register on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81908).
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination 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. For the changes 
requested by letter dated March 1, 2001, related to the ADS system and 
the ECCS surveillances, the licensee provided the following analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration:

    1. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not affect the initiators of analyzed 
events or the assumed mitigation of accident or transient events. 
Analyzed events are initiated by the failure of plant structures, 
systems or components. The proposed changes do not impact the 
condition or performance of these structures, systems or components. 
Consequences of analyzed events are the result of the plant being 
operated within assumed parameters at the onset of any events. The 
evaluations supporting the transition to GE fuel revealed

[[Page 44383]]

that the current Technical Specification (TS) Limiting Condition for 
Operation (LCO) and conditions must be revised to place additional 
limitations on equipment to ensure that the plant is operated within 
the assumptions of the safety analyses. With the additional 
limitations, the analyses demonstrate that all of the acceptance 
criteria continue to be met. As a result, the changes do not involve 
a significant increase in the probability of consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
facility or change the normal facility operation. No new or 
different equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is 
being removed. There is no alteration to the parameters within which 
the plant is normally operated or in the setpoints that initiate 
protective or mitigative actions. Consequently, no new failure modes 
are introduced and the changes therefore do not increase the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Margin of safety is established through the design of the plant 
structures, systems and components, the parameters within which the 
plant is operated, and the establishment of setpoints for the 
actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event. The 
proposed changes do not impact the condition or performance of 
structures, systems or components relied upon for accident 
mitigation or any safety analysis assumptions. The changes reflect a 
reduction in redundancy in the capability of the Automatic 
Depressurization System (ADS)[.] However, the proposed changes 
impose more restrictive requirements on operation to ensure that all 
of the accident analyses continue to meet acceptance criteria. 
Therefore the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in margin of safety.

    For the changes requested by letter dated August 13, 2001, related 
to the ECCS setpoints, the licensee provided the following analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration:

    1. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not affect the initiators of analyzed 
events. Analyzed events are initiated by the failure of plant 
structures, systems or components. The proposed changes do not 
impact the condition or performance of these structures, systems, or 
components. Therefore, the proposed changes do not affect the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to the time delays for the core spray and 
low pressure coolant injection pumps ensure that the assumptions in 
the safety analyses for the Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) are met. 
The safety analyses demonstrate that all of the acceptance criteria 
continue to be met. As a result, the proposed changes do not involve 
an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not involve a physical alteration of the 
facility or change the normal facility operation. No new or 
different equipment is being installed and no installed equipment is 
being removed. The new setpoints do not alter the parameters within 
which the plant is normally operated. Consequently, no new failure 
modes are introduced and the changes therefore do not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed TS changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed changes to the time delays for the core spray and 
low pressure coolant injection pumps ensure that the assumptions in 
the safety analyses for the LOCA are met. The safety analyses 
demonstrate that all of the acceptance criteria continue to be met. 
As a result, there is no 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 consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 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 30-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 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below. By September 24, 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 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. Publicly available records will be 
accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. 
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public 
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or 
by email to [email protected]. 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

[[Page 44384]]

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 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 a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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, 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. 
Robert Helfrich, Senior Counsel, Nuclear, Mid-West Regional Operating 
Group, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 1400 Opus Place, Suite 900, 
Downers Grove, Illinois, 60515, 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 September 29, 2000, as supplemented by 
letters dated March 1 and August 13, 2001, which are available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or 
if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of August 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. 01-21290 Filed 8-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P