[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 13, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25645-25647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11841]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265]
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.
DPR-29 and DPR-30, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the
licensee), for operation of the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station
(QCNPS), Units 1 and 2, located in Rock Island County, Illinois.
The proposed amendments would modify Technical Specification
Surveillance Requirements to provide an alternative means of testing
the Unit 1 main steam electromatic relief valves (ERVs), including
those that provide the automatic depressurization and the low set
relief functions, and provide an alternative means for testing the
Units 1 and 2 dual function Target Rock safety/relief valves (S/RVs).
In its application for the exigent amendment, the licensee stated
that on Unit 1, the 3A S/RV and 3C and 3D ERVs are currently leaking as
evidenced by elevated tailpipe temperatures. The high tailpipe
temperatures are indicative of steam leakage past the pilot valves or
main valve seats. Leakage from ERVs and S/RVs is discharged to a point
below the minimum water level in the suppression pool. Thus, the steam
leakage can result in increasing suppression pool temperature. In
addition, leakage past the pilot valves of S/RVs could cause an
inadvertent opening of the main valve. Experience in the industry and
at QCNPS indicates that manual actuation of main steam relief valves
during plant operation can lead to increased seat leakage. As a result,
the licensee plans as part of a maintenance outage previously scheduled
for May 20, 2003, to replace the 3A S/RV. In addition, the 3C and 3D
ERVs may also be replaced during the maintenance outage, pending
results of additional testing to be performed at the start of the
outage. This is being done based on the potential for steam leakage
past the ERVs and S/RVs to result in increased suppression pool
temperature. In addition, the alternative testing proposed for the 3A
S/RV will reduce the potential for pilot valve leakage which can cause
an inadvertent opening of the S/RV and impair the ability to re-close
the valve. The need for this license amendment was identified shortly
following an inadvertent opening of a relief valve on Unit 2 that
occurred April 16, 2003, and the S/RV and ERV work was added to the
scope of the planned maintenance outage on April 23, 2003. The licensee
states that it has used its best efforts to make a timely application
for the amendment. To support plant startup following the outage,
efforts to minimize the potential for increased suppression pool
temperature caused by leaking relief valves, and the desire to minimize
an inadvertent opening of an S/RV, the licensee requested NRC approval
of the proposed changes by May 29, 2003. This need date precludes use
of the normal 30-day notice period. Accordingly, as described above,
the basis for an exigent amendment request exists and the current
situation could not have been avoided.
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?
Response: No.
The proposed changes modify Technical Specification (TS)
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.4.3.2, SR 3.5.1.10, and SR 3.6.1.6.1
to provide an alternative means for testing the main steam line
relief valves, automatic depressurization system valves, and low set
relief valves. Accidents are initiated by the malfunction of plant
equipment, or the catastrophic failure of plant structures, systems,
or components. The performance of relief valve testing is not a
precursor to any accident previously evaluated and does not change
the manner in which the valves are operated. The proposed testing
requirements will not contribute to the failure of the relief
[[Page 25646]]
valves nor any plant structure, system, or component. Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (EGC) has determined that the proposed
change in testing methodology provides an equivalent level assurance
that the relief valves are capable of performing their intended
safety functions. Thus, the proposed changes do not affect the
probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The performance of relief valve testing provides confidence that
the relief valves are capable of depressurizing the reactor pressure
vessel (RPV). This will protect the reactor vessel from
overpressurization and allowing the combination of the Low Pressure
Coolant Injection and Core Spray systems to inject into the RPV as
designed. The low set relief logic causes two low set relief valves
to be opened at a lower pressure than the relief mode pressure
setpoints and causes the low set relief valves to stay open longer,
such that reopening of more than one valve is prevented on
subsequent actuations. Thus, the low set relief function prevents
excessive short duration relief valve cycles with valve actuation at
the relief setpoint, which avoids induced thrust loads on the relief
valve discharge line for subsequent actuations of the relief valve.
The proposed changes do not affect any function related to the
safety mode of the dual function safety/relief valves. The proposed
changes involve the manner in which the subject valves are tested,
and have no affect [sic] on the types or amounts of radiation
released or the predicted offsite doses in the event of an accident.
The proposed testing requirements are sufficient to provide
confidence that the relief valves are capable of performing their
intended safety functions. In addition, a stuck open relief valve
accident is analyzed in the QCNPS Updated Final Safety Analysis
Report. Since the proposed testing requirements do not alter
theassumptions for the stuck open relief valve accident, the
radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated are
not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes do not affect the assumed accident
performance of the main steam relief valves, nor any plant
structure, system, or component previously evaluated. The proposed
changes do not install any new equipment, and installed equipment is
not being operated in a new or different manner. The proposed change
in test methodology will ensure that the valves remain capable of
performing their safety functions due to meeting the testing
requirements of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, with the exception of opening the valve
following installation or maintenance for which a relief request has
been submitted, proposing an acceptable alternative. No setpoints
are being changed which would alter the dynamic response of plant
equipment. Accordingly, no new failure modes are introduced.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will allow testing of the valve actuation
electrical circuitry, including the solenoid, and mechanical
actuation components, without causing the relief valve to open. The
relief valves will be manually actuated prior to installation in the
plant. Therefore, all modes of relief valve operation will be tested
prior to entering the mode of operation requiring the valves to
perform their safety functions. The proposed changes do not affect
the valve setpoint or the operational criteria that directs the
relief valves to be manually opened during plant transients. There
are no changes proposed which alter the setpoints at which
protective actions are initiated, and there is no change to the
operability requirements for equipment assumed to operate for
accident mitigation.
Therefore, the proposed changes do 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 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 June 12, 2003, 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, and available electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 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.
[[Page 25647]]
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, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21,11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the
above date. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to
United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for
leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the
Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A
copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene
should also be sent to Mr. Edward J. Cullen, Deputy General Counsel,
Exelon BSC--Legal, 2301 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19101, 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 1, 2003, as supplemented May 2,
2003, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of May, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-11841 Filed 5-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P