[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