[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53643-53645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26693]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-454, STN 50-455, STN 50-456, STN-50-457]
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.
NPF-37, NPF-66, NPF-72, and NPF-77, issued to Exelon Generation
Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation of the Byron Station, Units
1 and 2 located in Ogle County, Illinois, and Braidwood Station, Units
1 and 2, located in Will County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would revise technical specification (TS)
3.7.2, ``Main Steam Isolation Valves'' (MSIV). TS surveillance
requirement (SR) 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.2.2 would be revised for Byron and
Braidwood to allow these requirements not to be met until the first
startup after September 27, 2001. By letter dated October 1, 2001, the
licensee requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
exercise discretion not to enforce compliance with the actions required
in Byron Station, Unit 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Unit 2, TS.
While reviewing the SRs section of the Bases for SR 3.7.2.1 and SR
3.7.2.2. in support of Braidwood Station, Unit 1 refueling outage
activities, the licensee discovered that the existing surveillance
procedures were inconsistent with the TS Bases. During start-up
following the last refueling outages at Braidwood Station, Units 1 and
2, and Byron Station Units 1 and 2, SR 3.7.2.1 and SR 3.7.2.2 were
performed in Mode 4 and not in Mode 3 as required by the TS. The
existing surveillance procedures for SR 3.7.2.1 and 3.7.2.2 allow
testing in Mode 3, 4, or 5.
The licensee stated that on September 27, 2001, 4 p.m. CDT (5 p.m.
EDT), the plants would not be in compliance with SR 3.7.2.1 and SR
3.7.2.2, which would require Braidwood Station, Unit 2, and Byron
Station, Units 1 and 2, to be in Mode 3 within the next 7 hours. A
Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) was requested pursuant to the
NRC's policy regarding exercise of discretion for an operating
facility, set out in Section VII.C. of the ``General Statement of
Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions'' (Enforcement
Policy), NUREG-1600, to be effective for the period until the first
startup after September 27, 2001. The NOED was granted to the licensee
on October 3, 2001, requiring an exigent amendment to be issued within
4 weeks of this date.
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?
MSIV closure is the initiator of the Inadvertent MSIV Closure
event. Operation of the affected units with MSIVs tested in Mode 4
instead of Mode 3 will not affect the probability of an inadvertent
MSIV closure event, since the only effect would be to potentially
delay to closure of the MSIVs. The MSIVs Original Equipment
Manufacturer (OEM) was contacted regarding the effect of system
conditions on MSIV stroke times. The OEM indicated that the most
significant impact on stroke time is main steam flow. The OEM also
indicated that impact due to MSL pressures alone resulted in little
change to valve closure time. According to the OEM, a few tenths of
a second is added to full design steam line pressure stroke test
versus stroke tests as performed without line pressure. The OEM's
basis for these statements was from testing that was performed
during the production of these and similar MSIVs. Any delay in
closure time will mitigate the effects of the resulting pressure
transient caused by the inadvertent closure of the MSIV. There are
no modifications to the hardware associated with accomplishing the
closure functions. Therefore there is no increase in the probability
of the Inadvertent MSIV closure event. The safety function of the
MSIVs is to close in the event of a high energy line break or to be
closed in the event of a steam generator tube rupture. These are
mitigative actions and are not initiators to any other accident
scenario previously analyzed in the updated final safety analysis
report. Therefore, the proposed change will not increase the
probability of any other previously analyzed accident.
The consequences of previously analyzed accidents will not be
significantly increased. Based on past data related to closure time,
and vendor information stating that the valve stroke time impact due
to increase in steam line pressure is on the order of a few tenths
of a second, we have reasonable assurance the valves will still
function within the assumed analysis time, thereby maintaining the
analyzed dose consequence for the steam line break and feedline
break accident analyses. The MSIVs will still function as assumed
for the steam generator tube rupture event, in that the valves will
function in response to operator action. Therefore, no additional
source term is added to the steam generator tube rupture analysis
and the consequence resulting from that event are not increased.
Therefore, due to the limited effect the deficient testing has
on the valve stroke time and the appreciable margin between the
required stroke time and the assumed isolation time in the limiting
analyses, the probability of occurrence and consequences of any
accident previously analyzed are not significantly increased.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of
[[Page 53644]]
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed action does not involve physical alteration of the
units. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment
is not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no
change being made to the parameters within which the units are
operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or mitigative
actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed action.
This proposed action will not alter the manner in which equipment
operation is initiated, nor will the function demands on credited
equipment be changed. The surveillance procedures for stroke time
testing the MSIVs will be revised to ensure the MSIVs are tested in
Mode 3. This change does not impact normal operation of the MSIVs.
In addition, no alteration in the procedures, which ensure the units
remain within analyzed limits, is proposed, and no change is being
made to procedures relied upon to respond to an off-normal event. As
such, no new failure modes are being introduced. The proposed action
does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore,
the proposed action does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
The proposed action does not involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety. The margin of safety is assured by the
operation of the plant within the prescribed parameters and by the
diverse and redundant protection afforded by the Reactor Protection
System (RPS) and Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System (ESFAS).
The identified testing deficiency does not affect the parameters
within which the unit is maintained, and is not detrimental to the
actuation of the RPS or ESFAS functions. Reasonable assurance is
provided that the MSIVs will achieve full closure within the
required time interval. As noted above, there is additional margin
between the required isolation time and that assumed in the limiting
accident analysis.
Therefore, based on the above evaluation, we have concluded that
the proposed changes do 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. 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 November 23, 2001, 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, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/CFR/index.html. If there are problems in accessing the
document, contact the Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected]. 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
[[Page 53645]]
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, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 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 Edward
J. Cullen Jr., Vice President and General Counsel, Exelon Generation
Company, LLC, 300 Exelon Way KSB
3-W, Kennett Square, PA 19348, 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 17, 2001, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the
NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of October 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh Chawla,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-26693 Filed 10-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P