[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26642-26644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11395]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-461]


Amergen Energy Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 
of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards 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 AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the licensee) for 
operation of the Clinton Power Station (CPS) located in DeWitt County, 
Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would allow a one-time extension of some CPS 
Technical Specification (TS) surveillance intervals related to logic 
system functional testing of the Primary Containment and Drywell 
Isolation Instrumentation, and the Suppression Pool Makeup System 
Instrumentation. The extension would be to November 30, 2000, which is 
the scheduled end date of the upcoming refueling outage. The extension 
is requested to support elimination of a planned mid-cycle outage. 
Previously, by license Amendment No. 125 dated March 17, 2000, the NRC 
staff approved surveillance interval extensions for various TS to 
support elimination of the mid-cycle outage.
    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. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes involve a one-
time only change in

[[Page 26643]]

the surveillance test intervals of selected Surveillance 
Requirements (SRs). As such, the Operability requirements for 
systems, structures, and components required by the Technical 
Specifications remain unchanged. Further, the proposed TS changes do 
not impact the TS surveillance performance requirements themselves 
nor the way in which the surveillances are performed, since only the 
test intervals are affected for the identified SRs. The proposed TS 
changes do not physically involve any changes to the plant, nor do 
they impact any design or functional requirements of the associated 
systems. Thus, the proposed TS changes do not increase the 
challenges of any safety systems assumed to function in the accident 
analysis.
    In addition, the proposed TS changes do not significantly affect 
the availability of equipment or systems required to mitigate the 
consequences of an accident because (1) extension of the test 
intervals to the extent requested is not expected to have a 
significant impact on availability (i.e., no extended test interval 
would exceed 30 months), and (2) other or more frequent testing 
performed for the affected systems or components, as well as for 
redundant systems or components, supports continued availability of 
the affected functions. The equipment subject to testing per the 
affected SRs is still required to be operable and capable of 
performing any accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident 
analysis. Furthermore, a historical review of surveillance test 
results identified no failures that would invalidate these 
conclusions.
    Based on the above, the proposed TS changes do not significantly 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The proposed TS changes involve a one-time only change in the 
surveillance testing intervals of selected SRs. Such changes do not 
introduce any failure mechanisms of a different type than those 
previously evaluated since there are no physical changes being made 
to the facility. In addition, the surveillance test requirements 
themselves, and the way surveillance tests are performed, will 
remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    The one-time extended surveillance frequencies do not result in 
a significant reduction in the margin of safety. Although the 
proposed TS changes will result in an increase in the interval 
between surveillance tests, the impact, if any, on system 
availability is small. This is because, as noted previously, 
extension of the test intervals to the limited extent proposed would 
not be expected to have a significant impact on availability. Other 
or more frequent testing performed for the affected systems or 
components, as well as the testing performed for redundant systems 
or components, supports continued availability of the affected 
functions.
    In addition, the proposed changes do not involve any physical 
changes to the affected systems or components, nor do they involve 
any changes to setpoints, operating limits, or safety limits.
    Based on the above, the assumptions in the licensing basis are 
not impacted, and the proposed TS changes do not significantly 
reduce a 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 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 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 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 June 7, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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

[[Page 26644]]

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 Kevin P. Gallen, Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius LLP, 1800 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-5869, 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 April 24, 2000, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-11395 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P