ML20092M955
| ML20092M955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, Quad Cities  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1995 |
| From: | Stay D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092M958 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510040259 | |
| Download: ML20092M955 (10) | |
Text
' W 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-237. 50-249. 50-254 AND 50-265 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSEP,.JC 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 Nos. DPR-19, DPR-25, DPR-29, and DPR-30 issued to Commor. wealth Edison Company (the licensec) for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, located in Grundy County, Illinois, and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would close out open items identified in the NRC staff's review of the upgrade of the Dresden and Quad Cities Technical Specifications (TS) to the standard Technical Specifications (STS; contained in NUREG-0123.
The Technical Specification Upgrade Program (TSUP) is not a complete adaption of the STS. The TS upgrade focuses on (1) integrating additionalinformationsuchasequipmentoperabilityrequirementsduring shutdown conditions, (2) clarifying requirements such as limiting conditions for operation and action statement: utilizing STS terminology, (3) deleting superseded requirements and modifications to the TS based on the licensee's responses to Generic Letters (GL), and (4) relocating specific items to more appropriate TS locations. The September 15, 1995, application proposed to close out the open items from TSUP Sections 1.0, 3/4.4, 3/4.10, and 5.0 only.
t r
9510040259 950929 PDR ADOCK 05000237 p
PDR 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, which is presented below:
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
j In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of current requirements to a more generic format, or the addition of requirements which are based on the current safety analysis.
Implementation of these changes will provide increased reliability of equipment assumed to operate in the current safety analysis, or provide continued assurance that specified parameters remain within their acceptance limits, and as i
such, will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
Some of the proposed changes represent minor curtailments of the current requirements which are based on generic guidance or previously approved provisions for other stations. The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Station's Technical Specifications are based on STS guidelines or later operating BWR plants' NRC acceptad changes. Any deviations from STS requirements do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of any previously evaluated accidents for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations. The proposed amendment is consistent with the current safety analyses and has been previously determined to represent sufficient requirements for the assurance and reliability of
r equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis, or provide continued assurarce that specified parameters remain within their acceptance limits. As such, these changes will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
The associated systems related to this proposed amendment are not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations; therefore, the probability of any accident previously evaluated is not increased by the proposed amendment.
In addition, the proposed surveillance requirements for the proposed amendments to these systems are generally more prescriptive than the current requirements specified within the Technical Specifications.
The additional surveillance requirements improve the reliability and availability of all affected systems and therefore, reduce the consequences of any accident previously evaluated as the probability of the systems related to the TSUP open items outlined within the proposed Technical Specifications performing their intended function is increased by the additional surveillances.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated because:
In general, the proposed amendment represents the conversion of current i
requirements to a more generic format, the addition of requirements which are based on the current safety analysis, and some minor curtailments of the current requirements which are based on generic j
guidance or previously approved provisions for other stations.
These I
changes do not involve revisions to the design of the station.
Some of i
the changes may involve revision in the operation of the station; l
however, these provide additional restrictions which are in accordance with the current safety analysis, or arejo provide for additional testing or surveillances which will not introduce new failure mechanisms beyond those already considered in the current safety analyses.
The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Station's Technical l
Specification is based on STS guidelines or later operating BWR plants' i
NRC accepted changes. The proposed amendment has been reviewed for acceptability at the Dresden and Quad Cities Nuclear Power Stations considering similarity of system or component design versus the STS or later operating B9Rs. Any deviations from STS requirements do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident previously l
evaluated for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations.
No new modes of l
operation are introduced by the proposed changes.
Surveillance requirements are changed to reflect improvements in j
technique, frequency of performance or operating experience at later plants.
Proposed changes to action statements in many places add requireme.s' that are not in the present technical specifications.
The l
proposed enanges maintain at least the present level of operability.
i r
u
I i
i
-4_
l Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
'l The associated systems related to this proposed amendment are not assumed in any safety analysis to initiate any accident sequence for Dresden or Quad Cities Stations.
In addition, the >roposed surveillance requirements for affected systems associated with tie TSUP open items are generally more prescriptive than the current requirements specified within tne Technical Specifications; therefore, the proposed changes do
-l not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.from j
any previously evaluated.
j Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because:
l In general, the propose amendment represents the conversion of current requirements to a more generic format, the addition of requirements which are based on the current safety analysis, and some minor curtailments of the current requirements which are based on generic guidance or previously approved provisions for other stations. Some of the latter individual items may introduce minor reductions in the margin of safety when compared to the current requirements.
However, other individual changes are the adoption of new requirements which will provide significant enhancement of the reliability of the equipment assumed to operate in the safety analysis, or provide enhanced assurance that specified parameters remain with their acceptance limits.
These I
enhancements compensate for the individual minor reductions, such that taken together, the proposed changes will not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications implements present requirements, or the intent of present requirements in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the STS. Any deviations from STS wirements do not significantl,y reduce the margin of safety for Dresders or Quad Cities Stations. The proposed changes are intended to ieprove readability, usability, and the understanding of technical specification requirements while maintaining acceptable levels of safe operation. The proposed changes have been evaluated and found to be acceptable for use at Dresden or Quad Cities' based on system design, safety analysis requirements and operational performance.
Since the proposed changes are based on NRC accepted provisions at other operating plants that are applicable at Dresden or Quad Cities and maintain necessary levels of system or component reliability, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed amendment for Dresden and Quad Cities Stations will not reduce the availability of systems associated with the TSUP open items when required to mitigate accident conditions; therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
[
]
', i i
f 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.
i The Comission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be cor sidered in making any final j
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 Comission h
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 Comission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTffta notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Csmmission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written ce nnients may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rock /ille Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from
r l
f 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 l
is discussed below.
l By November 6
, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing i
i with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility )perating l
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this praceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
(
I request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Requests for a j
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" l
in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR i
2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document j
rooms located at the Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for Dresden and the Dixon Public Libfa'r'y, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad Cities.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to i
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and i
Licensing Board, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic i
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; l
and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensitg Board will i
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 l
. = -
u 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 l
prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such l
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 contentior.s which are sought to be litigated in the matter.
Each cordention 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 l
expert opinion.
Potitioner must provide sufficient information to :,how that a -
1
. _ _ _, ~.. _ _., _..
. ~
t I
'- l f
genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact.
l Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment i
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relijf. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one l
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject l
to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the i
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 Comission 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 Comission may issue the amendment and i
make it imediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearingheldwouldtakeplaceafterissuanceof*theamendment.
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 Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. Where
- l f
petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Comniission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to Mr. Robert Capra:
i petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Michael I. Miller, Esquire, Sidley and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60603, 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 15, 1995, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document rooms located at the Morris Public Library, 604 Liberty Street, Morris, Illinois for Dresden and at
- T
_ lo _
the Dixon Public Library, 221 Hennepin Avenue, Dixon, Illinois for Quad Cities.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29thday of September 1995.
FOR,THE-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION
/
/.
'hcrut )h Donna M. Stay, Project er Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III\\lV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 4
4 i
l
$h$
e 4
i il E
m
.