[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25645-25647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11841]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265]


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. 
DPR-29 and DPR-30, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the 
licensee), for operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 
(QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification 
Surveillance Requirements to provide an alternative means of testing 
the Unit 1 main steam electromatic relief valves (ERVs), including 
those that provide the automatic depressurization and the low set 
relief functions, and provide an alternative means for testing the 
Units 1 and 2 dual function Target Rock safety/relief valves (S/RVs).
    In its application for the exigent amendment, the licensee stated 
that on Unit 1, the 3A S/RV and 3C and 3D ERVs are currently leaking as 
evidenced by elevated tailpipe temperatures. The high tailpipe 
temperatures are indicative of steam leakage past the pilot valves or 
main valve seats. Leakage from ERVs and S/RVs is discharged to a point 
below the minimum water level in the suppression pool. Thus, the steam 
leakage can result in increasing suppression pool temperature. In 
addition, leakage past the pilot valves of S/RVs could cause an 
inadvertent opening of the main valve. Experience in the industry and 
at QCNPS indicates that manual actuation of main steam relief valves 
during plant operation can lead to increased seat leakage. As a result, 
the licensee plans as part of a maintenance outage previously scheduled 
for May 20, 2003, to replace the 3A S/RV. In addition, the 3C and 3D 
ERVs may also be replaced during the maintenance outage, pending 
results of additional testing to be performed at the start of the 
outage. This is being done based on the potential for steam leakage 
past the ERVs and S/RVs to result in increased suppression pool 
temperature. In addition, the alternative testing proposed for the 3A 
S/RV will reduce the potential for pilot valve leakage which can cause 
an inadvertent opening of the S/RV and impair the ability to re-close 
the valve. The need for this license amendment was identified shortly 
following an inadvertent opening of a relief valve on Unit 2 that 
occurred April 16, 2003, and the S/RV and ERV work was added to the 
scope of the planned maintenance outage on April 23, 2003. The licensee 
states that it has used its best efforts to make a timely application 
for the amendment. To support plant startup following the outage, 
efforts to minimize the potential for increased suppression pool 
temperature caused by leaking relief valves, and the desire to minimize 
an inadvertent opening of an S/RV, the licensee requested NRC approval 
of the proposed changes by May 29, 2003. This need date precludes use 
of the normal 30-day notice period. Accordingly, as described above, 
the basis for an exigent amendment request exists and the current 
situation could not have been avoided.
    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?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes modify Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, SR 3.5.1.10, and SR 3.6.1.6.1 
to provide an alternative means for testing the main steam line 
relief valves, automatic depressurization system valves, and low set 
relief valves. Accidents are initiated by the malfunction of plant 
equipment, or the catastrophic failure of plant structures, systems, 
or components. The performance of relief valve testing is not a 
precursor to any accident previously evaluated and does not change 
the manner in which the valves are operated. The proposed testing 
requirements will not contribute to the failure of the relief

[[Page 25646]]

valves nor any plant structure, system, or component. Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC (EGC) has determined that the proposed 
change in testing methodology provides an equivalent level assurance 
that the relief valves are capable of performing their intended 
safety functions. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the 
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    The performance of relief valve testing provides confidence that 
the relief valves are capable of depressurizing the reactor pressure 
vessel (RPV). This will protect the reactor vessel from 
overpressurization and allowing the combination of the Low Pressure 
Coolant Injection and Core Spray systems to inject into the RPV as 
designed. The low set relief logic causes two low set relief valves 
to be opened at a lower pressure than the relief mode pressure 
setpoints and causes the low set relief valves to stay open longer, 
such that reopening of more than one valve is prevented on 
subsequent actuations. Thus, the low set relief function prevents 
excessive short duration relief valve cycles with valve actuation at 
the relief setpoint, which avoids induced thrust loads on the relief 
valve discharge line for subsequent actuations of the relief valve. 
The proposed changes do not affect any function related to the 
safety mode of the dual function safety/relief valves. The proposed 
changes involve the manner in which the subject valves are tested, 
and have no affect [sic] on the types or amounts of radiation 
released or the predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident. 
The proposed testing requirements are sufficient to provide 
confidence that the relief valves are capable of performing their 
intended safety functions. In addition, a stuck open relief valve 
accident is analyzed in the QCNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis 
Report. Since the proposed testing requirements do not alter 
theassumptions for the stuck open relief valve accident, the 
radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated are 
not increased.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not affect the assumed accident 
performance of the main steam relief valves, nor any plant 
structure, system, or component previously evaluated. The proposed 
changes do not install any new equipment, and installed equipment is 
not being operated in a new or different manner. The proposed change 
in test methodology will ensure that the valves remain capable of 
performing their safety functions due to meeting the testing 
requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler 
and Pressure Vessel Code, with the exception of opening the valve 
following installation or maintenance for which a relief request has 
been submitted, proposing an acceptable alternative. No setpoints 
are being changed which would alter the dynamic response of plant 
equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are introduced.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes will allow testing of the valve actuation 
electrical circuitry, including the solenoid, and mechanical 
actuation components, without causing the relief valve to open. The 
relief valves will be manually actuated prior to installation in the 
plant. Therefore, all modes of relief valve operation will be tested 
prior to entering the mode of operation requiring the valves to 
perform their safety functions. The proposed changes do not affect 
the valve setpoint or the operational criteria that directs the 
relief valves to be manually opened during plant transients. There 
are no changes proposed which alter the setpoints at which 
protective actions are initiated, and there is no change to the 
operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for 
accident mitigation.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant 
reduction in 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 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 June 12, 2003, 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, and available electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 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.

[[Page 25647]]

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 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, Public File Area O1 
F21,11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the 
above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to 
United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for 
leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the 
Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission 
to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be 
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing 
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile 
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A 
copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to Mr. Edward J. Cullen, Deputy General Counsel, 
Exelon BSC--Legal, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101, 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 1, 2003, as supplemented May 2, 
2003, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public 
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents 
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of May, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-11841 Filed 5-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P