ML20063E926
| ML20063E926 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1994 |
| From: | Gody A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20063E929 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9402140032 | |
| Download: ML20063E926 (9) | |
Text
,
)
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[0MMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATINC_ilCENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINA.' ION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissior (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-Il and NPF-18 issued to Commonwealth Edison Company, (the licensee) for operation of the LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in LaSalle County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would extend the functional test interval from Monthly to Quarterly for the following:
1.
Reactor protection system instrumentation surveillances for Main Steam Line Isolation Valve Closure, Turbine Stop Valve Closure, and Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure Valve Trip System Oil Pressure Low; and 2.
E0C-RPT system instrumentation surveillances for Turbine Stop Valve Closure, and Turbine Control Valve Fast Closure.
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 9402140032 940202 PDR ADOCK 05000373 p
u -
i 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:
Commonwealth Edison has evaluated the proposed Technical Specification Amendment which extends the Surveillance Test Interval (STI) for certain instruments in the Reactor Protection System (RPS) and the End-of-Cycle Recirculation Pump Trip (EOC-RPT) System for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, and determined that they do not constitute a Significant Hazards Consideration. Based on the criteria for defining a significant hazards consideration established in 10 CFR 50.92, operation of LaSalle County Station, Units I and 2 in accordance with the proposed amendment will not:
D Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because:
The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes increase the STI for actuation instrumentation supporting RPS and EOC-RPT trip functions. There are no changes in any of the affected systems themselves. Because of this there is no change in the probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an accident or the consequences of malfunction of equipment. With respect to the malfunction of equipment, topical reports prepared by GE demonstrated that there is a reduction in scram frequency for the RPS. This offsets the slight increase in trip function unavailability determined by GE.
This was judged acceptable by GE. The NRC concurred with this conclusion in its review of the topical reports (NEDC-30851P-A).
For E0C-RPT GE demonstrated that the trip function unavailability when the surveillance interval is extended from 1 to 3 months is lower for the turbine stop valve trip function and slightly higher for the turbine control valve trip function than the same trip functions for RPS-scram. However, GE concluded that tne small increase in EOC-RPT unavailability (represented by small increased
.s
_3_
risk of a MCPR violation) is offset by the benefits associated with the similar approved STI and A0T changes for the RPS-scram function. Therefore, GE concluded that the STI changes for EOC-RPT trip function are bounded by the approved RPS analysis (Reference 5). The NRC accepted the conclusions of GE by a SER included in Reference 9.
The proposed changes are consistent with the Safety Evaluation Reports issued in these topical reports. The proposed changes therefore do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
The proposed changes do not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the UFSAR. The proposed changes increase the STI for the RPS and E0C-RPT Instrumentation. There are no changes in the instrumentation of these systems.
Since there are no such changes there is no possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously evaluated.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because:
The proposed changes do not reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.
The proposed changes do not change any setpoints in the above mentioned systems or their levels of redundancy. Setpoints are based upon the drift occurring during an 18 month calibration interval. The bases in the Technical Specifications either do not discuss STI, or state
...one channel may be inoperable for brief intervals to conduct required surveillance." The proposed changes are bounded by the analyses of References 5 and 9.
These analyses, which were prepared by GE and approved by the NRC, examined the effects of extending STI and found that the proposed changes would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
LaSalle Station Units 1 and 2 RPS and E0C-RPT systems have been compared to the generic analyses and verified to be bounded.
This proposed amendment does not involve a significant relaxation of the criteria used to establish safety limits, a significant relaxation of the bases for the limiting safety system settings or a significant relaxation of the bases for the limiting conditions for operations. Therefore, based on the guidance provided in the Federal Register and tS 'riteria established in 10 CFR.50.92(c),
the proposed change det not constitute a significant hazards consideration.
I
, 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 j
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Comission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any coments received within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Comission 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 i
would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Comission 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 coments received.
Should the Comission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written coments 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 Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publicat' ion date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written coments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 i
l 5-i a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Celman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By February 24, 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 i
in accordance with the Comission'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 Comission's j
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Public Library I
of Illinois Valley Comunity College, Rural Route No.1, Oglesby, Illinois s
61348.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic,,Jety 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 j
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
'I
I i '
i 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 th'e 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
i o
\\
1
_y_
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 a'y 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.
I 5
t-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 James E. Dyer: 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 1
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Michael I. Miller, Esquire; Sidley and Austin, One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois 60690, 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
t 1
i
o I
t For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 10, 1993 as supplemented on November 17, 1993, 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 i
the local public document room, located at the Public Library of Illinois Valley Community College, Rural Route No.1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February 1994.
~
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
t r
Anthony T. Gody, Jr.,
roject Manager Project Directorate III-2 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
$