Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Notices 30519

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section IV shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the immediate effectiveness of

this Order.

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 22nd day of

May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Collins,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14775 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–461]

Illinois Power Co; 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 concerns

operation of a new emergency reserve

auxiliary transformer (ERAT) to provide

power to the plant 4.16-kV busses from

the offsite 138-kV transmission network.

The new ERAT will have a larger

capacity and automatic load tapchanging (LTC) capability.

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) Installation of the new ERAT with

automatic LTC capability (and increased

capacity) will support operability of the 138-

kV source for CPS, thus maintaining at least

one operable source of offsite electrical

power in accordance with Technical

Specification 3.8.2. The voltage support

provided by the new ERAT LTC will also

minimize the probability of a transfer to the

onsite emergency diesel generator(s) in the

event of high plant load (including a real or

inadvertent actuation of ESF [engineered

safety feature] systems). These positive

effects from the voltage regulation provided

by the ERAT LTC support operation of safety

systems required for decay heat removal and

maintaining the plant in a safe condition, as

well as may be required for mitigation of

accidents that could occur during plant

shutdown conditions.

At the same time, (and as further addressed

below) employment of the ERAT LTC

introduces the possibility of a new

malfunction that could cause plant

equipment important to safety to be subjected

to overvoltage. However, since the ERAT LTC

incorporates a primary and backup means of

preventing voltage extremes (high or low),

the potential for damage to plant equipment

(or an unnecessary trip of the undervoltage

relays) is low. The PRA [probabilistic risk

assessment] performed for this potential

overvoltage condition, under plant shutdown

conditions, showed that an event involving

overvoltage caused by LTC/LTC-controller

failure and which leads to equipment failure

and subsequent fuel damage, is not credible.

On the basis of the PRA evaluation, and in

consideration of the safety benefit associated

with the voltage support provided by the

ERAT LTC, IP believes that employment of

the ERAT LTC during plant shutdown

conditions has no significant adverse impact

to plant safety systems. Therefore, the

proposed does not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of any accident previously evaluated.

(2) In consideration of the potential

adverse impacts that the ERAT LTC may

have on plant systems, structures or

components, such impacts are primarily

confined to potential electrical faults or

abnormal conditions. With respect to

potential adverse electrical impacts, the

potential electrical failure modes or abnormal

conditions applicable to the ERAT LTC

mainly include the same failure modes or

conditions that applied to the ERAT as a

fixed-tap transformer, except for the potential

malfunction of the LTC controller that could

cause voltage to be run up or down to

excessively high or low values. As noted

previously, however, this potential is greatly

reduced by the backup controller provided

with the ERAT LTC. (For an undervoltage

condition, plant equipment would be

additionally protected by the plant safety bus

degraded voltage relays.) With respect to a

potential LTC malfunction that may cause an

overvoItage condition, further evaluation by

PRA (for plant shutdown conditions) has

shown that the probability of an event

involving an LTC malfunction that causes an

overvoltage condition leading to damage of

safety-related equipment and subsequent fuel

damage is 2 x 107 per year. This makes such

an event incredible. Further, the potential for

overvoltage from an LTC malfunction to lead

to a new or unanalyzed accident is reduced

by the plant being in a shutdown condition,

as previously described.

Thus, although the use of the ERAT LTC

introduces the possibility of a new

equipment malfunction not previously

evaluated, based on the above, it does not

introduce the possibility of a new or different

accident not previously evaluated.

(3) As noted previously, incorporation of

the ERAT LTC into the CPS auxiliary power

system will regulate plant bus voltage for the

138-kV offsite source. As such, the ERAT

LTC will compensate for reduced margin that

has occurred or may occur in the near term

(especially during peak summer load

demand), with respect to the difference

between the voltage required for plant safety

loads and the minimum expected offsite

voltage. The ERAT LTC also has a

significantly higher load capacity, than the

current ERAT, thus further enhancing the

capability and capacity of the 138-kV offsite

source. This increased margin also reduces

the probability of a transfer to the diesel

generator(s) (that are intended to be an

emergency electric power source) in the

event of high plant load with low offsite

source voltage.

Based on the above, and with respect to

voltage requirements for plant loads the

proposed ERAT replacement does not

involve a significant reduction in the 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
30520 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Notices

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 July 6, 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

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 May 20, 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, Md., this 28th day of

May 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jon B. Hopkins,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–3, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–14776 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P