[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56949-56951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-28463]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-461]
Illinois Power Company; 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 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 requests deferral of the next scheduled
local leak rate test for valve 1MC-042 until the seventh refueling
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 change does not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change revises Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.13
to permit deferral of the leakage rate testing of primary
containment penetration 1MC-042 until the seventh refueling outage.
Analyzed accidents are considered to be initiated by the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. The potential for
increased leakage through primary containment penetration 1MC-042 is
not itself a condition that is or could lead to an initiator of any
analyzed accident. The proposed change will not alter the operation
of or otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant
equipment whose failure could initiate an analyzed accident. As
such, the probability of occurrence for a previously analyzed
accident is not significantly increased.
[[Page 56950]]
The consequences of a previously analyzed accident are dependent
on the initial conditions assumed for the analysis, the availability
and successful functioning of the equipment assumed to operate in
response to the analyzed accident, and the setpoints at which these
actions are initiated. Primary containment penetration 1MC-042 forms
part of the overall primary containment boundary which serves to
provide a barrier to prevent the release of fission products to the
environment in the event a previously analyzed accident should
occur.
The only attributes of this change that could affect the
consequences of a previously analyzed accident are the leakage
characteristics pertaining to the primary containment isolation
function of 1MC-042. The leakage acceptance criteria for penetration
1MC-042 are not being revised as a result of the proposed change.
Since penetration 1MC-042 was successfully tested earlier during the
current shutdown period, and since this penetration has an excellent
leakage performance history, and because no significant degradation
mechanisms have been present since it was last tested, there is
adequate assurance that penetration 1MC-042 will continue to
maintain adequate leak tightness throughout the next operating
cycle. The proposed change for this one penetration is thus not
expected to have any significant effect itself on the overall leak
rate of the containment. Further, a conservative margin already
exists with respect to the leakage assumed in the accident analyses
due to the overall Type B and Type C leakage being limited by TS
5.5.13 to less than or equal to 0.6 La prior to unit restart. On
this basis, the proposed change has no significant impact on the
radiological analysis for the design basis accident(s) that assumes
limited containment leakage. Based on this evaluation, there is no
significant increase in the consequences of a previously analyzed
accident.
Therefore, this change will not involve a significant increase
in the probability or consequences of any accident previously
evaluated.
(2) The proposed change would not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
The proposed change revises TS 5.5.13 to allow the primary
containment leakage rate test of penetration 1MC-042 to be deferred
until the seventh refueling outage. No new failure modes are
introduced by the proposed change as it only concerns or potentially
affects leakage already considered or accounted for with respect to
primary containment penetrations. The proposed change does not
change the operating characteristics, function, or mechanical design
of penetration IMC-042. Likewise, there are no changes being made to
any other equipment or structures. No new or different equipment is
being installed, and no installed equipment whose failure might
initiate an analyzed event is being operated in a different manner.
The proposed change does not impact core reactivity or the
manipulation of fuel bundles. There is no alteration to the
parameters within which the plant is normally operated or in the
setpoints that initiate protective or mitigative actions. There are
no changes in the methods governing normal plant operation, nor are
the methods utilized to respond to plant transients altered.
Therefore, based on the above, the proposed change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The margin of safety is established through the design of the
plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within
which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints
for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event.
The margin of safety potentially affected by the proposed change is
associated with the postaccident offsite dose consequences
associated with the integrity of the primary containment boundary.
The proposed change revises TS 5.5.13 to permit deferral of the
leakage rate testing of primary containment penetration 1MC-042
until the seventh refueling outage. The design of penetration 1MC-
042 and its leakage performance criteria are not affected by this
change. Deferral of the leakage rate test will not in and of itself
create a condition such that there will be a significant loss of
isolation capability of the subject penetration, nor will the
proposed change affect the leakage characteristics of the other
components and structures that form portions of the primary
containment boundary. Based on the leakage rate test history of
penetration 1MC-042 and the absence of any significant degradation
mechanisms that could cause this penetration to experience a
reduction in effectiveness as a primary containment boundary, the
proposed change does not involve any significant impact on
containment leakage, and therefore does not involve any significant
impact on the dose analysis for which a maximum containment leakage
is assumed.
Therefore, the proposed change does 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 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 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 November 23, 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
[[Page 56951]]
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 October 5, 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, Maryland, this 19th day of October 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-28463 Filed 10-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
