[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 18, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44962-44964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21399]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457]


Commonwealth Edison Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 
of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses Nos. 
NPF-72 and NPF-77, issued to the Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd, 
the licensee), for Braidwood Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, 
located in Will County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendments would temporarily change the Technical 
Specifications (TS) to increase the upper temperature limit for the 
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) from 98 degrees Fahrenheit to 100 degrees 
Fahrenheit. The proposed temporary change would be in effect until 
September 30, 1999.
    Prolonged hot weather has resulted in sustained, elevated UHS 
temperatures at Braidwood Station. Continued hot weather may result in 
the UHS

[[Page 44963]]

temperature exceeding 98 degrees Fahrenheit. This would be expected to 
occur before the Commission could publish a Notice in the Federal 
Register that would allow 30 days for public comment.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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 amendments 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:

    Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Analyzed accidents are assumed to be initiated by the failure of 
plant structures, systems or components. An inoperable UHS is not 
considered as an initiator of any analyzed events. The analyses for 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, assume an UHS temperature of 100 
degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore, continued operation with an UHS 
temperature less than or equal to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, until 
September 30, 1999, will not increase the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated in the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report]. The proposed change does not involve any physical 
alteration of plant systems, structures or components. A UHS 
temperature of up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit does not increase the 
failure rate of systems, structures or components because the 
systems, structures or components are rated and analyzed for 
operation with Essential Service water temperatures of 100 degrees 
Fahrenheit and the design allows for higher temperatures than at 
which they presently operate.
    The basis provided in Regulatory Guide 1.27 ``Ultimate Heat Sink 
for Nuclear Power Plants,'' Revision 2, dated January 1976, was 
employed for the temperature analysis of the Braidwood Station UHS 
to implement General Design Criteria 44 and 2 of Appendix A to 10 
CFR Part 50. This Regulatory Guide was employed for both the 
original design/licensing basis of the Braidwood Station UHS and a 
subsequent evaluation which investigated the potential for 
increasing the average water temperature of the UHS from less than 
or equal to 98 degrees Fahrenheit to less than or equal to 100 
degrees Fahrenheit. The meteorological conditions chosen for the 
Braidwood Station UHS analysis utilized a synthetic 36-day period 
consisting of the most severe 5 days, most severe 1 day, and the 
most severe 30 days based on historical data. The heat loads 
selected for the UHS analysis considered one Braidwood Unit in a 
LOCA [Loss-of-Coolant Accident] condition concurrent with a Loss-of-
Offsite Power (LOOP) and the remaining Braidwood unit undergoing a 
normal plant shutdown. In the analysis, these heat loads are removed 
by the UHS using only SX [essential service water] pumps. The main 
condenser cooling pond is conservatively assumed not to be available 
at the start of the event. The analysis shows that with an initial 
UHS temperature of 100 degrees Fahrenheit, the required heat loads 
can be met for 30 days while maintaining essential service water 
temperatures at acceptable values.
    Based on the above facts and reasoning, it has been demonstrated 
that the increase of the initial UHS temperature from less than or 
equal to 98 degrees Fahrenheit to less than or equal to 100 degrees 
Fahrenheit at the start of the design basis event will result in the 
continued ability of the equipment and components supplied by the SX 
system to perform their safety functions.
    Therefore, increasing the average water temperature of the UHS 
from less than or equal to 98 degrees Fahrenheit to less than or 
equal to 100 degrees Fahrenheit in TS 3.7.9, has no impact on any 
analyzed accident. Raising this limit does not introduce any new 
equipment, equipment modifications, or any new or different modes of 
plant operation, nor does it affect the operational characteristics 
of any equipment or systems. Therefore, these changes do not involve 
a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed action does not involve a physical alteration of 
the units. There is no change being made to the parameters within 
which the units are operated that is not bounded by the analyses. 
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. No alteration in the procedures that 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.
    Increasing the average water temperature of the UHS in TS 3.7.9 
has no impact on plant operation. The proposed temperature limits 
does not introduce new failure mechanisms for systems, structures or 
components. The engineering analyses performed to support the UHS 
temperature increase provides the basis to conclude that the 
equipment is designed for the operation at elevated temperatures. In 
addition, design and construction codes provided sufficient margin 
to accommodate the proposed temperature change.
    Therefore, this proposed amendment does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    The proposed action allows operation with the UHS temperature 
less than or equal to 100 degrees Fahrenheit until September 30, 
1999. The margin defined by the difference in the assumed steady 
state SX temperature and the calculated SX temperature profile 
integrated over the duration of the event is not significantly 
impacted. The margin of safety is determined by the design and 
qualification of the plant equipment, the operation of the plant 
within analyzed limits, and the point at which protective or 
mitigative actions are initiated. The proposed action does not 
impact these factors. There are no required design changes or 
equipment performance parameter changes associated with this change. 
No protection setpoints are affected as a result of this change. 
This temperature increase will not change the operational 
characteristics of the design of any equipment or system. All 
accident analysis assumptions and conditions will continue to be 
met. Thus, the proposed increase in temperature 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 
amendments requested involve 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 amendments 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 amendments before the expiration 
of the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is 
that the amendments involve 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.

[[Page 44964]]

    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 September 17, 1999, the licensee may file a request for a 
hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject 
facility operating licenses 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 Wilmington Public Library, 201 S. Kankakee 
Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481. 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 amendments 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 amendments are 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 amendments requested involve 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendments and make them immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendments.
    If the final determination is that the amendments requested involve 
a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendments.
    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 Ms. Pamela B. Stroebel, Senior Vice 
President and General Counsel, Commonwealth Edison Company, P.O. Box 
767, Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767, 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 amendments dated July 30, 1999, 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 Wilmington Public Library, 201 S. 
Kankakee Street, Wilmington, Illinois 60481.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of August 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart Bailey,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate 3, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-21399 Filed 8-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P