[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20005]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 16, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-461]

 

Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating 
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing; Illinois Power Co.

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
HPF-62, issued to the Illinois Power Company (the licensee), for 
operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, located in Dewitt 
County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 
Table 4.8.1.1.2-1, ``Diesel Generator Test Schedule,'' to exclude three 
valid failures of the Division 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG) from 
contributing towards accelerated diesel generator testing.
    The last three valid failures (occurring on August 3, 1993, June 7 
and July 12, 1994) were determined not as the result of an actual 
surveillance test, but the confirmation of the failure of one of two 
CV-2 relays associated with the Division 1 EDG output breaker. The 
relays are checked each shift for visible indication of failure. 
Failure of the relay could cause premature closure of the breaker upon 
receipt of an automatic start signal due to or coincident with a loss 
of offsite power. The cause of these failures was subsequently 
attributed to undersized current-limiting resistors that were installed 
in the relays by the vendor. These resistors were replaced with 
appropriately sized resistors and testing has been performed to ensure 
operability. The relay is normally tested only during the 18-month 
shutdown test that assures proper functioning of the EDG and associated 
equipment upon receipt of a loss-of-offsite power test signal. Weekly 
testing, as required by TS Table 4.8.1.1.2-1, allows for manual loading 
which bypasses the CV-2 relay.
    The valid failure of the Division 1 EDG on June 7, 1994, brought 
the number of failures in the last 100 valid tests up to seven. In 
addition, the valid failure of July 12, 1994, was the second failure in 
the last 20 tests. In accordance with TS Table 4.8.1.1.2-1, the 
frequency of testing increases from monthly to weekly until at least 
seven consecutive successful tests are performed and there is a maximum 
of only one failure in the last 20 tests. Weekly testing, which began 
following the failure of June 7, 1994, must now continue until at least 
the first week of October 1994.
    In a letter dated August 5, 1994, the licensee requested an exigent 
technical specification change to modify TS Table 4.8.1.1.2-1 to 
exclude these three valid failures from contributing to accelerated 
testing of the Division 1 diesel generator. The licensee's basis for 
this request included the following:
     Additional weekly testing is inappropriate because the 
increased surveillance testing does not test the relay that failed;
     The undersized current-limiting resistors found in the CV-
2 relays have been replaced which should eliminate similar failures in 
the future;
     Plant operators, who identified the previous three 
failures, will continue to tour the equipment once per shift and check 
for targets that may have dropped;
     Testing of the EDG at the Clinton power Station involve 
paralleling the diesel generators to the grid. NRC Information Notice 
84-69 warns against operating diesel generators connected to offsite 
power unnecessarily as disturbances in the offsite power system can 
adversely affect availability of the EDG; and
     Excessive or unnecessary testing of diesel generators can 
cause unnecessary wear or degradation and thus contribute to their 
reduced reliability.
    Approval of the proposed TS change will eliminate unnecessary 
testing of the diesel generator and will permit the licensee to resume 
a monthly test frequency. Prompt action by the staff is necessary to 
eliminate unnecessary testing and precludes the time available to 
permit the customary public notices in advance of this action.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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:
    (1) The proposed change itself does not involve any changes to the 
plant design or operation and therefore does not affect any initiators 
of any previously evaluated accidents. Consequently the proposed change 
does not involve any significant increase in the probability of 
occurrence of any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change only allows certain identified test failures of 
the Division 1 diesel generator to not be included in the total number 
of failure used to determine whether testing of the diesel generator 
should be increased. Because appropriate corrective action has been 
taken in response to those particular test failures, acceptable 
reliability of the Division 1 diesel generator is assured without 
increased testing in response to those failures. Further, the Clinton 
Power Station design includes redundancy and consideration of single-
failure criteria such that alternate sources, both onsite and offsite, 
are provided to ensure safe shutdown of the facility in the event of an 
accident, including mitigation of the consequences of an accident. 
Based on the above, Illinois Power concludes that the proposed change 
will not increase the consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    (2) The proposed change does not involve any modification to plant 
design or operation which could introduce a new failure mode. The 
proposed change only impacts the frequency of testing of the Division 1 
diesel generator as it does not directly affect operation or the design 
of the Division 1 diesel generator or any other plant structure, system 
or component. As a result, no new failure modes are introduced and the 
proposed change will therefore not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (3) As noted above, other than the impact on the frequency of 
testing performed on the Division 1 diesel generator, the proposed 
change involves no changes to the plant design or operation. Therefore, 
as they are typically defined or established by the plant's accident 
analyses, no margins of safety are impacted by the proposed change. 
Notwithstanding, if diesel generator reliability is viewed as a margin 
of safety, Division 1 diesel generator reliability is the only margin 
of safety potentially impacted by the proposed change. However, as 
noted previously, reliability of the Division 1 diesel generator is not 
adversely affected by the proposed change since the corrective actions 
taken in response to the noted failures provide assurance of acceptable 
diesel generator reliability without increased testing in response to 
these failures. Further, the proposed change will reduce the potential 
for excessive or unnecessary increased testing of the diesel generators 
which may adversely affect diesel generator reliability through wear 
and degradation. Precluding unnecessary testing of the diesel 
generators will also limit the potential reduction in plant safety 
resulting from disturbances in the offsite power system or in non-vital 
loads. In total, the proposed change does not therefore involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses 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 15 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 15-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 15-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. The Commission 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 the 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By September 15, 1994, 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, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local 
public document room located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 
120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727. 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 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.
    If the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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 determinationis 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, 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 20555, 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 John Hannon, Director, Project 
Directorate III-3: 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, and to Sheldon Zabel, Esq., Schiff, 
Hardin and Waite, 7200 Sears Tower, 233 Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 
60606, 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 August 5, 1994, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local 
public document room, located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 
120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Douglas V. Pickett,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-20005 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M