Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing; Illinois Power Co.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-461]

Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing; Illinois Power Co.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.

HPF-62, issued to the Illinois Power Company (the licensee), for

operation of the Clinton Power Station, Unit 1, located in Dewitt

County, Illinois.

The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS)

Table 4.8.1.1.2-1, ``Diesel Generator Test Schedule,'' to exclude three

valid failures of the Division 1 emergency diesel generator (EDG) from

contributing towards accelerated diesel generator testing.

The last three valid failures (occurring on August 3, 1993, June 7

and July 12, 1994) were determined not as the result of an actual

surveillance test, but the confirmation of the failure of one of two

CV-2 relays associated with the Division 1 EDG output breaker. The

relays are checked each shift for visible indication of failure.

Failure of the relay could cause premature closure of the breaker upon

receipt of an automatic start signal due to or coincident with a loss

of offsite power. The cause of these failures was subsequently

attributed to undersized current-limiting resistors that were installed

in the relays by the vendor. These resistors were replaced with

appropriately sized resistors and testing has been performed to ensure

operability. The relay is normally tested only during the 18-month

shutdown test that assures proper functioning of the EDG and associated

equipment upon receipt of a loss-of-offsite power test signal. Weekly

testing, as required by TS Table 4.8.1.1.2-1, allows for manual loading

which bypasses the CV-2 relay.

The valid failure of the Division 1 EDG on June 7, 1994, brought

the number of failures in the last 100 valid tests up to seven. In

addition, the valid failure of July 12, 1994, was the second failure in

the last 20 tests. In accordance with TS Table 4.8.1.1.2-1, the

frequency of testing increases from monthly to weekly until at least

seven consecutive successful tests are performed and there is a maximum

of only one failure in the last 20 tests. Weekly testing, which began

following the failure of June 7, 1994, must now continue until at least

the first week of October 1994.

In a letter dated August 5, 1994, the licensee requested an exigent

technical specification change to modify TS Table 4.8.1.1.2-1 to

exclude these three valid failures from contributing to accelerated

testing of the Division 1 diesel generator. The licensee's basis for

this request included the following:

Additional weekly testing is inappropriate because the

increased surveillance testing does not test the relay that failed;

The undersized current-limiting resistors found in the CV-

2 relays have been replaced which should eliminate similar failures in

the future;

Plant operators, who identified the previous three

failures, will continue to tour the equipment once per shift and check

for targets that may have dropped;

Testing of the EDG at the Clinton power Station involve

paralleling the diesel generators to the grid. NRC Information Notice

84-69 warns against operating diesel generators connected to offsite

power unnecessarily as disturbances in the offsite power system can

adversely affect availability of the EDG; and

Excessive or unnecessary testing of diesel generators can

cause unnecessary wear or degradation and thus contribute to their

reduced reliability.

Approval of the proposed TS change will eliminate unnecessary

testing of the diesel generator and will permit the licensee to resume

a monthly test frequency. Prompt action by the staff is necessary to

eliminate unnecessary testing and precludes the time available to

permit the customary public notices in advance of this action.

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) The proposed change itself does not involve any changes to the

plant design or operation and therefore does not affect any initiators

of any previously evaluated accidents. Consequently the proposed change

does not involve any significant increase in the probability of

occurrence of any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change only allows certain identified test failures of

the Division 1 diesel generator to not be included in the total number

of failure used to determine whether testing of the diesel generator

should be increased. Because appropriate corrective action has been

taken in response to those particular test failures, acceptable

reliability of the Division 1 diesel generator is assured without

increased testing in response to those failures. Further, the Clinton

Power Station design includes redundancy and consideration of single-

failure criteria such that alternate sources, both onsite and offsite,

are provided to ensure safe shutdown of the facility in the event of an

accident, including mitigation of the consequences of an accident.

Based on the above, Illinois Power concludes that the proposed change

will not increase the consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

(2) The proposed change does not involve any modification to plant

design or operation which could introduce a new failure mode. The

proposed change only impacts the frequency of testing of the Division 1

diesel generator as it does not directly affect operation or the design

of the Division 1 diesel generator or any other plant structure, system

or component. As a result, no new failure modes are introduced and the

proposed change will therefore not create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

(3) As noted above, other than the impact on the frequency of

testing performed on the Division 1 diesel generator, the proposed

change involves no changes to the plant design or operation. Therefore,

as they are typically defined or established by the plant's accident

analyses, no margins of safety are impacted by the proposed change.

Notwithstanding, if diesel generator reliability is viewed as a margin

of safety, Division 1 diesel generator reliability is the only margin

of safety potentially impacted by the proposed change. However, as

noted previously, reliability of the Division 1 diesel generator is not

adversely affected by the proposed change since the corrective actions

taken in response to the noted failures provide assurance of acceptable

diesel generator reliability without increased testing in response to

these failures. Further, the proposed change will reduce the potential

for excessive or unnecessary increased testing of the diesel generators

which may adversely affect diesel generator reliability through wear

and degradation. Precluding unnecessary testing of the diesel

generators will also limit the potential reduction in plant safety

resulting from disturbances in the offsite power system or in non-vital

loads. In total, the proposed change does not therefore involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses 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 15 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 15-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 15-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 Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page

number of the Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, 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

20555.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By September 15, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local

public document room located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library,

120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 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 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 determinationis 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, Attention: Docketing and Services

Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,

the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the

above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the

notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform

the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-

(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to John Hannon, Director, Project

Directorate III-3: petitioner's name and telephone number, date

petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number

of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be

sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Sheldon Zabel, Esq., Schiff,

Hardin and Waite, 7200 Sears Tower, 233 Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois

60606, 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 August 5, 1994, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local

public document room, located at the Vespasian Warner Public Library,

120 West Johnson Street, Clinton, Illinois 61727.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Douglas V. Pickett,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor

Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-20005 Filed 8-15-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M