[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53643-53645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26693]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456, STN-50-457]


Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of 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 Nos. 
NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72, and NPF-77, issued to Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Byron Station, Units 
1 and 2 located in Ogle County, Illinois, and Braidwood Station, Units 
1 and 2, located in Will County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would revise technical specification (TS) 
3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves'' (MSIV). TS surveillance 
requirement (SR) 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.2.2 would be revised for Byron and 
Braidwood to allow these requirements not to be met until the first 
startup after September 27, 2001. By letter dated October 1, 2001, the 
licensee requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required 
in Byron Station, Unit 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Unit 2, TS. 
While reviewing the SRs section of the Bases for SR 3.7.2.1 and SR 
3.7.2.2. in support of Braidwood Station, Unit 1 refueling outage 
activities, the licensee discovered that the existing surveillance 
procedures were inconsistent with the TS Bases. During start-up 
following the last refueling outages at Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 
2, and Byron Station Units 1 and 2, SR 3.7.2.1 and SR 3.7.2.2 were 
performed in Mode 4 and not in Mode 3 as required by the TS. The 
existing surveillance procedures for SR 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.2.2 allow 
testing in Mode 3, 4, or 5.
    The licensee stated that on September 27, 2001, 4 p.m. CDT (5 p.m. 
EDT), the plants would not be in compliance with SR 3.7.2.1 and SR 
3.7.2.2, which would require Braidwood Station, Unit 2, and Byron 
Station, Units 1 and 2, to be in Mode 3 within the next 7 hours. A 
Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) was requested pursuant to the 
NRC's policy regarding exercise of discretion for an operating 
facility, set out in Section VII.C. of the ``General Statement of 
Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions'' (Enforcement 
Policy), NUREG-1600, to be effective for the period until the first 
startup after September 27, 2001. The NOED was granted to the licensee 
on October 3, 2001, requiring an exigent amendment to be issued within 
4 weeks of this date.
    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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    MSIV closure is the initiator of the Inadvertent MSIV Closure 
event. Operation of the affected units with MSIVs tested in Mode 4 
instead of Mode 3 will not affect the probability of an inadvertent 
MSIV closure event, since the only effect would be to potentially 
delay to closure of the MSIVs. The MSIVs Original Equipment 
Manufacturer (OEM) was contacted regarding the effect of system 
conditions on MSIV stroke times. The OEM indicated that the most 
significant impact on stroke time is main steam flow. The OEM also 
indicated that impact due to MSL pressures alone resulted in little 
change to valve closure time. According to the OEM, a few tenths of 
a second is added to full design steam line pressure stroke test 
versus stroke tests as performed without line pressure. The OEM's 
basis for these statements was from testing that was performed 
during the production of these and similar MSIVs. Any delay in 
closure time will mitigate the effects of the resulting pressure 
transient caused by the inadvertent closure of the MSIV. There are 
no modifications to the hardware associated with accomplishing the 
closure functions. Therefore there is no increase in the probability 
of the Inadvertent MSIV closure event. The safety function of the 
MSIVs is to close in the event of a high energy line break or to be 
closed in the event of a steam generator tube rupture. These are 
mitigative actions and are not initiators to any other accident 
scenario previously analyzed in the updated final safety analysis 
report. Therefore, the proposed change will not increase the 
probability of any other previously analyzed accident.
    The consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not be 
significantly increased. Based on past data related to closure time, 
and vendor information stating that the valve stroke time impact due 
to increase in steam line pressure is on the order of a few tenths 
of a second, we have reasonable assurance the valves will still 
function within the assumed analysis time, thereby maintaining the 
analyzed dose consequence for the steam line break and feedline 
break accident analyses. The MSIVs will still function as assumed 
for the steam generator tube rupture event, in that the valves will 
function in response to operator action. Therefore, no additional 
source term is added to the steam generator tube rupture analysis 
and the consequence resulting from that event are not increased.
    Therefore, due to the limited effect the deficient testing has 
on the valve stroke time and the appreciable margin between the 
required stroke time and the assumed isolation time in the limiting 
analyses, the probability of occurrence and consequences of any 
accident previously analyzed are not significantly increased.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of

[[Page 53644]]

accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed action does not involve physical alteration of the 
units. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment 
is not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no 
change being made to the parameters within which the units are 
operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigative 
actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action. 
This proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment 
operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited 
equipment be changed. The surveillance procedures for stroke time 
testing the MSIVs will be revised to ensure the MSIVs are tested in 
Mode 3. This change does not impact normal operation of the MSIVs. 
In addition, no alteration in the procedures, which ensure the units 
remain within analyzed limits, is proposed, and no change is being 
made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As 
such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The proposed action 
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore, 
the proposed action does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    The proposed action does not involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety. The margin of safety is assured by the 
operation of the plant within the prescribed parameters and by the 
diverse and redundant protection afforded by the Reactor Protection 
System (RPS) and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS). 
The identified testing deficiency does not affect the parameters 
within which the unit is maintained, and is not detrimental to the 
actuation of the RPS or ESFAS functions. Reasonable assurance is 
provided that the MSIVs will achieve full closure within the 
required time interval. As noted above, there is additional margin 
between the required isolation time and that assumed in the limiting 
accident analysis.
    Therefore, based on the above evaluation, we have concluded that 
the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration.

    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 14 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 14-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 14-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 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By November 23, 2001, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/CFR/index.html. If there are problems in accessing the 
document, contact the Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected]. 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

[[Page 53645]]

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 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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 Edward 
J. Cullen Jr., Vice President and General Counsel, Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 300 Exelon Way KSB 
3-W, Kennett Square, PA 19348, 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 October 17, 2001, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the 
NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not 
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room 
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to 
[email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of October 2001.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh Chawla,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-26693 Filed 10-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P