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

[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