[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30519-30520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14776]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-461]


Illinois Power Co; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to 
Facility Operating License, Proposed No 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 No. 
NPF-62 issued to Illinois Power Company (IP, or the licensee) for 
operation of the Clinton Power Station (CPS) located in DeWitt County, 
Illinois.
    The proposed amendment concerns operation of a new emergency 
reserve auxiliary transformer (ERAT) to provide power to the plant 
4.16-kV busses from the offsite 138-kV transmission network. The new 
ERAT will have a larger capacity and automatic load tap-changing (LTC) 
capability.
    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:

    (1) Installation of the new ERAT with automatic LTC capability 
(and increased capacity) will support operability of the 138-kV 
source for CPS, thus maintaining at least one operable source of 
offsite electrical power in accordance with Technical Specification 
3.8.2. The voltage support provided by the new ERAT LTC will also 
minimize the probability of a transfer to the onsite emergency 
diesel generator(s) in the event of high plant load (including a 
real or inadvertent actuation of ESF [engineered safety feature] 
systems). These positive effects from the voltage regulation 
provided by the ERAT LTC support operation of safety systems 
required for decay heat removal and maintaining the plant in a safe 
condition, as well as may be required for mitigation of accidents 
that could occur during plant shutdown conditions.
    At the same time, (and as further addressed below) employment of 
the ERAT LTC introduces the possibility of a new malfunction that 
could cause plant equipment important to safety to be subjected to 
overvoltage. However, since the ERAT LTC incorporates a primary and 
backup means of preventing voltage extremes (high or low), the 
potential for damage to plant equipment (or an unnecessary trip of 
the undervoltage relays) is low. The PRA [probabilistic risk 
assessment] performed for this potential overvoltage condition, 
under plant shutdown conditions, showed that an event involving 
overvoltage caused by LTC/LTC-controller failure and which leads to 
equipment failure and subsequent fuel damage, is not credible.
    On the basis of the PRA evaluation, and in consideration of the 
safety benefit associated with the voltage support provided by the 
ERAT LTC, IP believes that employment of the ERAT LTC during plant 
shutdown conditions has no significant adverse impact to plant 
safety systems. Therefore, the proposed does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of any 
accident previously evaluated.
    (2) In consideration of the potential adverse impacts that the 
ERAT LTC may have on plant systems, structures or components, such 
impacts are primarily confined to potential electrical faults or 
abnormal conditions. With respect to potential adverse electrical 
impacts, the potential electrical failure modes or abnormal 
conditions applicable to the ERAT LTC mainly include the same 
failure modes or conditions that applied to the ERAT as a fixed-tap 
transformer, except for the potential malfunction of the LTC 
controller that could cause voltage to be run up or down to 
excessively high or low values. As noted previously, however, this 
potential is greatly reduced by the backup controller provided with 
the ERAT LTC. (For an undervoltage condition, plant equipment would 
be additionally protected by the plant safety bus degraded voltage 
relays.) With respect to a potential LTC malfunction that may cause 
an overvoItage condition, further evaluation by PRA (for plant 
shutdown conditions) has shown that the probability of an event 
involving an LTC malfunction that causes an overvoltage condition 
leading to damage of safety-related equipment and subsequent fuel 
damage is 2 x 10\7\ per year. This makes such an event incredible. 
Further, the potential for overvoltage from an LTC malfunction to 
lead to a new or unanalyzed accident is reduced by the plant being 
in a shutdown condition, as previously described.
    Thus, although the use of the ERAT LTC introduces the 
possibility of a new equipment malfunction not previously evaluated, 
based on the above, it does not introduce the possibility of a new 
or different accident not previously evaluated.
    (3) As noted previously, incorporation of the ERAT LTC into the 
CPS auxiliary power system will regulate plant bus voltage for the 
138-kV offsite source. As such, the ERAT LTC will compensate for 
reduced margin that has occurred or may occur in the near term 
(especially during peak summer load demand), with respect to the 
difference between the voltage required for plant safety loads and 
the minimum expected offsite voltage. The ERAT LTC also has a 
significantly higher load capacity, than the current ERAT, thus 
further enhancing the capability and capacity of the 138-kV offsite 
source. This increased margin also reduces the probability of a 
transfer to the diesel generator(s) (that are intended to be an 
emergency electric power source) in the event of high plant load 
with low offsite source voltage.
    Based on the above, and with respect to voltage requirements for 
plant loads the proposed ERAT replacement does not involve a 
significant 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 of 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

[[Page 30520]]

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. 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 July 6, 1998, 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, and at the local public 
document room located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library, 310 N. 
Quincy Street, Clinton, IL 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 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, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
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 Leah Manning Stetzner, Vice 
President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary, 500 South 27th 
Street, Decatur, IL 62525, 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 May 20, 1998, 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 Vespasian Warner Public Library, 310 N. 
Quincy Street, Clinton, IL 61727.

    Dated at Rockville, Md., this 28th day of May 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-14776 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P