Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304]

Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance

of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.

DPR-39 and DPR-48 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, the

licensee) for operation of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and

2, located in Lake County, Illinois.

The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification

Section 4.3.1.B.4.A.10.a which provides the acceptance criteria for

steam generator tube repairs by adding a footnote which references the

cleanliness and nondestructive examination requirements as described in

CEN-629-P, Revision 00, ``Repair of Westinghouse Series 44 and 51 Steam

Generator Tubes Using Leak Tight Sleeves.''

Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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

amendments requested involve 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:

1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

[[Page 47967]]

The proposed amendment continues to allow the ABB/CE Tungsten

Inert Gas (TIG) welded tubesheet sleeves to be used as an alternate

tube repair method for Zion Units 1 and 2 Steam Generators along

with the process improvements which are proposed to be footnoted

within the Technical Specifications. The sleeve configuration was

designed and analyzed in accordance with the criteria of Regulatory

Guide (RG) 1.121 and Section III of the ASME Code and is unaffected

by the enhancements that will be implemented. Fatigue and stress

analyses of the sleeved tube assemblies as described in the

currently approved Topical Report, CEN-331-P are unaffected by the

enhancements being proposed.

Mechanical testing which has shown that the structural strength

of the sleeves under normal, faulted, and upset conditions is within

the acceptable limits is unaffected by the enhancements being

proposed. Leakage rate testing for the tube sleeves which has

demonstrated that primary to secondary leakage is not expected

during any plant condition is unaffected by the enhancements being

proposed. The consequences of leakage through the sleeved region of

the tube, including the proposed enhancements, is bounded by the

existing steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) analysis included in

the Zion Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.

The proposed TS change reflects enhancements to the

installation/inspection process which is identified in the currently

licensed Topical Report CEN-331-P, Revision 1-P. These enhancements

do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated. The new Topical Report specifies that proper

cleaning and inspection of the weld zone be performed prior to

sleeve installation and eddy current testing has been added as part

of the sleeve acceptance criteria to ensure the structural integrity

of the tube sleeve weld joint.

The proposed TS change which supports the installation and NDE

enhancements of the ABB/CE TIG welded sleeves does not adversely

impact any previously evaluated design basis accident. Installation

of the sleeves, with the proposed enhancements, can be used to

repair degraded tubes by returning the condition of the tubes to

their original design basis condition for tube integrity and leak

tightness during all plant conditions. Therefore the currently

approved sleeving process with the proposed enhancements will not

increase the probability of occurrence of an accident previously

evaluated.

Therefore, these proposed changes do not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

The implementation of the proposed sleeving process will not

introduce significant or adverse changes to the plant design basis.

The current stress and fatigue analyses of the repair identified in

Topical Report CEN-331-P have shown the ASME Code and RG 1.121

allowable values are met and are unaffected by the proposed

enhancements. The current TIG welded sleeving design with the

proposed enhancements will continue to maintain overall tube bundle

structural and leakage integrity at a level consistent with that of

the originally supplied tubing. Leak and mechanical testing of the

sleeves, are unaffected by the proposed enhancements and continue to

support the conclusions that the sleeve retains both structural and

leakage integrity during all operating and accident conditions.

Repair of a tube with a sleeve, utilizing the proposed enhancements,

does not provide a mechanism that results in an accident outside of

the area affected by the sleeve.

The proposed change to implement specific sections from Topical

Report CEN-629-P will not create a new or different type of

accident. The change only reflects enhancements to the currently

licensed installation/inspection process and would not change or

impact any hypothetical accident previously discussed.

Any hypothetical accident as a result of potential tube or

sleeve degradation in the repaired portion of the tube is bounded by

the existing SGTR analysis. The sleeve design does not affect any

other component or location of the tube outside of the immediate

area repaired.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of

a new or different type of accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction

in a margin of safety.

The currently licensed TIG welded sleeving repair of degraded

steam generator tubes has been shown by analysis to restore the

integrity of the tube bundle to its original design basis condition.

By implementing the proposed enhancement the consistent quality of

the upper sleeve weld has increased reducing the potential for

rework and reducing the potential for leaving a weld indication in

service.

The proposed change does not involve a reduction to the margin

of safety. These enhancements which are identified from specific

sections of the Topical Report CEN-629-P reflect enhancements to the

installation/inspection process which is currently licensed by the

staff. These enhancements would not have any adverse effects on the

previously evaluated design transient or accident analysis. The

enhancements simply specify cleaning and inspection methods of the

sleeve-tube upper weld zone which will ensure the integrity of the

pressure boundary.

Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety.

Based on the preceding analysis it is concluded that operation

of Zion Units 1 and 2, in accordance with the proposed amendment,

does not increase the probability of an accident previously

evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, nor reduce

any margins to plant safety. Therefore, this proposed amendment does

not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR

50.92.

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

amendments requested involve 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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration

of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is

that the amendments involve 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

Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications 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 6D22, 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 October 11, 1996, the licensee may file a request for a hearing

with respect to issuance of the amendments 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

[[Page 47968]]

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 at

the local public document room located at the Waukegan Public Library,

128 N. County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085. 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 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 amendments 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 amendments requested involve

no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the

amendments and make them 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 amendments requested involve

a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place

before the issuance of any amendments.

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: 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 petitions are filed during the last 10 days of

the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so

inform the Commission 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 Robert A. Capra: 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 Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this action, see the

application for amendments dated September 3, 1996, 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 room located at the Waukegan Public Library, 128 N.

County Street, Waukegan, Illinois 60085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of September 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Donna M. Skay,

Acting Project Manager Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor

Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96-23196 Filed 9-10-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P