IES Utilities Inc.; Central Iowa Power Cooperative, Corn Belt Power Cooperative; 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 64, Number 20 (Monday, February 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4902-4904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2304]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-331]


IES Utilities Inc.; Central Iowa Power Cooperative, Corn Belt 
Power Cooperative; 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. 
DPR-49, issued to IES Utilities Inc., Central Iowa Power Cooperative, 
and Corn Belt Power Cooperative (the licensees), for operation of the 
Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) located in Linn County, Iowa.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.8.1.7 to better match plant conditions 
during testing by clarifying which voltage and frequency limits are 
applicable during the transient and steady state portions of the diesel 
generator start.
    The licensee requested that this proposed amendment be processed as 
an exigent request, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6). The exigency is 
created by the existing TS surveillance, SR 3.8.1.7,

[[Page 4903]]

containing inappropriate acceptance criteria that the diesel generator 
(DG) is not designed to meet and which is overly conservative with 
respect to the DAEC Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) 
requirements for the DGs. This acceptance criteria was incorporated 
into the TS just prior to the approval of DAEC's conversion to Improved 
Standard TS (NUREG 1433). The licensee did not intend that the basic 
requirements of this testing be different from those contained in the 
former custom TS (CTS 4.8.A.2.a.2). However, a significant change was 
introduced due to the adoption of the wording of NUREG-1433. Because 
this change was not recognized at that time, the plant procedure for 
the new SR did not correctly implement the TS. It was only recently, 
during the review of the BASES for this SR for another issue, that this 
error was recognized.
    Based on the circumstances described above, the NRC verbally issued 
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on January 20, 1999. The NOED 
was documented by letter dated January 22, 1999. The NOED expressed the 
NRC's intention to exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with 
SR 3.8.1.7 until the exigent TS amendment request to revise SR 3.8.1.7, 
which the licensee submitted on January 22, 1999, is processed.
    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:

    After reviewing this proposed amendment, the licensee concluded:
    1. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The safety function of the DG is to provide AC power to required 
safety systems during any Loss of Offsite Power (LOOP) event. The 
limiting design basis accident is the Loss of Coolant Accident with 
concurrent LOOP (LOOP-LOCA). This proposed amendment modifies a DG 
surveillance requirement and does not impact the off-site AC 
distribution system; therefore the probability of any LOOP event, 
including the LOOP-LOCA is not significantly increased.
    This proposed change revises the SR to better match the plant 
conditions during the test. SR 3.8.1.7 is performed with the DG 
unloaded. As a result, the DG initially over-shoots its target 
nominal voltage and frequency during testing. In an actual event, 
the DG would be almost immediately loaded once minimum voltage and 
frequency requirements are met, thereby limiting the over-shoot.
    To ensure the DGs are able to fulfill their safety function, the 
proposed SR requires DG voltage and frequency to achieve the 
specified minimum acceptable values within 10 seconds and settle to 
a steady state voltage and frequency within the specified minimum 
and maximum values. That is, the upper limits are only applicable 
for steady state operation and do not apply during the transient 
portion of the DG start. The revision changes the SR 3.8.1.7 
criteria to clarify which voltage and frequency limits are 
applicable during the transient and steady state portions of the DG 
start.
    This change does not affect the DG's ability to supply the 
minimum voltage and frequency required within 10 seconds or the 
steady state voltage and frequency required by the UFSAR. The DGs 
will continue to perform their intended safety function, in 
accordance with the DAEC accident analysis. Thus, the consequences 
of any previously-analyzed event are not significantly increased by 
this change.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The revision changes the SR 3.8.1.7 criteria to clarify which 
voltage and frequency limits are applicable during the transient and 
steady state portions of the DG start. No changes are being made in 
how the system actually operates or is physically tested.
    Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The margin of safety is not significantly reduced. The DGs will 
perform their intended safety function, in accordance with the DAEC 
accident analysis. The revised test criteria are a better match for 
the tested condition (unloaded). The performance of other TS 
Surveillances (in particular, SRs 3.8.1.9, 3.8.1.12 and 3.8.1.13) 
demonstrate DG Operability in conditions which are more 
representative of postulated accident conditions (loaded in the 
actual time sequence assumed in the accident analysis). The DGs will 
continue to perform their intended safety function in accordance 
with the DAEC accident analysis and UFSAR requirements. Therefore, 
the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety.
    Based upon the above, the licensee determined that the proposed 
amendment will 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. 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 March 3, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect

[[Page 4904]]

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 Cedar Rapids Public Library, 500 First Street SE, Cedar Rapids, 
Iowa 52401. 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 
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, 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 Al Gutterman; Morgan, Lewis & 
Bockius, 1800 M Street NW, Washington, D.C. 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 January 22, 1999, 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 Cedar Rapids Public Library, 500 
First Street SE, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of January 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-2304 Filed 1-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P