[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 191 (Monday, October 2, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58829-58831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25237]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Amergen Energy Company, LLC;

[Docket No. 50-461]


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 AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (the licensee), for 
operation of the Clinton Power Station (CPS) located in DeWitt County, 
Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would allow placing a static VAR compensator 
into service with just one of the two protective subsystems operable.
    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

[[Page 58830]]

hazards 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 any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The accident analyses assume that the offsite AC electrical 
power sources have sufficient capacity, capability, redundancy and 
reliability to ensure the availability of necessary power to safety-
related systems so that the fuel, reactor coolant system, and 
containment design limits are not exceeded and that the postulated 
transients and accidents are effectively mitigated such that offsite 
radiation exposure criteria are not exceeded. The SVCs [static VAR 
compensators] provide voltage support, when required, for the 
associated offsite AC power circuits to the safety-related buses and 
equipment supplied by those circuits. The SVC protection systems 
described in LCO [Technical Specification limiting condition for 
operation] 3.8.11 protect safety-related equipment from potential 
SVC failure modes that could damage or degrade Class 1E electrical 
equipment.
    The proposed request to add an LCO 3.0.4 exception to TS 
[Technical Specification] 3.8.11 Required Action A.1 would result in 
the ability to place an SVC back into service with only one 
protection subsystem Operable for up to 30 days. This request would 
allow an SVC to provide voltage support for onsite loads, as 
necessary, and thus assist in ensuring an adequate power source to 
safety-related electrical equipment. Restoring an SVC to service 
provides automatic voltage support, when required, rather than 
relying on manual means to monitor offsite grid conditions to ensure 
adequate onsite power voltage. This request continues to limit the 
duration of inoperability of the SVC protective subsystem to 30 days 
as required by LCO 3.8.11 Required Action A.1.
    SVC failure, with or without an Operable protective subsystem, 
is a plausible initiator for those accidents evaluated in the 
Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR) Chapters 6 and 15 that result 
from an interruption of an offsite power source; for example, a loss 
of RHR [residual heat removal system] during shutdown conditions 
when supplied by an offsite power circuit. However, no facility 
design changes are associated with the SVCs or their associated 
offsite circuits that would cause a change in component failure 
probability; hence reliability of the SVCs is maintained at their 
previous levels. Therefore, no change in plausible initiation 
mechanisms or frequencies has occurred. In addition, following 
approval of this request, the remaining protective subsystem would 
continue to be required Operable. When combined with the proposed 
30-day limitation on the proposed request, the assumed conditions 
and failure probabilities used to derive the basis for the Required 
action and associated Completion Times for Conditions B and C of TS 
3.8.11 are preserved. Thus, no significant increase in the 
probability of any accident previously evaluated results from this 
change.
    For those accidents that rely on the availability of the offsite 
power circuit for successful mitigation, no change has been 
introduced to alter the assumed failure modes or effects. One SVC 
protective subsystem will continue to provide a level of protection 
consistent with the analyses provided for the basis for the Required 
Actions and associated Completion Times for Conditions B and C of TS 
3.8.11. Thus, the assumed failure of the SVC would not alter the 
assumptions of the accident analyses nor consequences resulting from 
the accident analyses. Therefore, no significant increase in 
consequences of any accident evaluated previously results from this 
change.
    Based on the above, the proposed amendment does 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 to the SVC protection subsystem minimum 
requirements will not introduce any new or different accident. No 
changes have been introduced into the design or operation of the SVC 
or the associated offsite circuit that would result in a new or 
different failure mode or effect. No failures previously considered 
incredible would be made credible as a result of allowing an LCO 
3.0.4 exception to place an SVC into service with only one 
protective subsystem Operable. Therefore, sufficient protection 
against SVC malfunctions will continue to exist for the duration of 
this change and, thus, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Although the minimum requirements for an SVC Protection 
Subsystem are proposed to be changed, the SVCs will continue to be 
protected from all of its postulated failures. Because of the 
reliable design of the protective subsystems and the demonstrated 
reliability and predictable behavior of the SVC during its previous 
service, the redundant protective subsystem provides a negligible 
increase in the margin of safety associated with the overall 
protection system. Thus, the request to allow an LCO 3.0.4 exception 
to place an SVC into service with only one protective subsystem 
Operable does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety. Further, the benefit of having the SVC in service to support 
offsite circuit Operability, as needed, provides a greater margin of 
safety than the margin lost due to the reduction in protective 
system redundancy.
    Based on the above, it is concluded that 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 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 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, 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 Wednesday November 1, 2000, 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

[[Page 58831]]

Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible electronically through the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 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 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, 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 Kevin P. 
Gallen, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 1800 M Street, NW, Washington, DC 
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 September 20, 2000, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-25237 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P