[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42895-42897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20533]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


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. 
NPF-72 and NPF-77, issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC (the 
licensee) for operation of the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Will County, Illinois.
    The proposed amendment would provide a temporary change to 
Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS).'' 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.7.9.2 verifies that average water 
temperature of the UHS is 100  deg.F every 24 hours as 
measured at the discharge of the operating Essential Service Water (SX) 
pumps. With the average water temperature of the UHS greater than 100 
deg.F, the UHS must be declared inoperable in accordance with condition 
A. With the UHS inoperable, Condition A requires that both units be 
placed in Mode 3, i.e., Hot Standby, within six hours and Mode 5, i.e., 
Cold Shutdown, within 36 hours. The proposed amendment would provide a 
temporary change to increase the average temperature limit of the 
Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) from 100  deg.F to 102  deg.F through 
September 30, 2001.
    Prolonged hot weather in the area has resulted in the sustained 
elevated UHS. High temperatures and humidity during the daytime in 
conjunction with little cooling at night and little precipitation have 
resulted in elevated water temperature in Braidwood Station's UHS. 
There are no controllable measures that can be taken to immediately 
reduce the temperature of the UHS in that reduction of the heat input 
by derating the units would have a negligible short-term effect on the 
temperature of the UHS. The licensee has requested approval of the 
proposed change as soon as possible to avoid a potential shutdown of 
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2.
    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?

    Analyzed accidents are assumed to be initiated by the failure of 
plant structures, systems or components. An inoperable Ultimate Heat 
Sink (UHS), which is the source of water for the Essential Service 
Water (SX) System, is not considered as an initiator of any analyzed 
events. The design basis analyses for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 
2, assume a UHS temperature of 100  deg.F. Further assessments have 
been performed which assumed an SX temperature of 102  deg.F. An UHS 
temperature of up to 102  deg.F does not increase the failure rate 
of systems, structures or components because the systems, structures 
or components have been evaluated for operation with SX temperatures 
of 102  deg.F and the design allows for higher temperatures than at 
which they presently operate.
    This higher temperature does not have a significant impact on 
the Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) analysis or Containment 
analysis, and the non-LOCA analyses are unaffected. Therefore, 
continued operation with an UHS temperature  102  deg.F 
will not increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated in the Byron/Braidwood Stations' Updated Final Safety 
Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed change does not involve any 
physical alteration of plant systems, structures or components. 
Based on the above, it has been determined that unit operation with 
an initial UHS temperature of 102  deg.F at the onset of previously 
evaluated accidents will result in the continued ability of the 
equipment and components supplied by the SX System to perform their 
intended safety functions.
    Therefore, increasing the average water temperature limit of the 
UHS from  100  deg.F to  102  deg.F does not 
increase the consequences of any accident previously evaluated. 
Raising this limit does not introduce any new equipment, equipment 
modifications, or any new or different modes of plant operation, nor 
does it significantly affect the operational characteristics of any 
equipment or systems.
    Therefore, the proposed temporary 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?

    The proposed action does not involve physical alteration of the 
units. No new equipment is being introduced, and installed equipment 
is not being operated in a new or different manner. There is no 
significant change being made to the parameters within which the 
units are operated. There are no setpoints at which protective or 
mitigative actions are initiated that are affected by this proposed 
action. This proposed action will not significantly 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 govern plant operation 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 significantly alter assumptions made in the 
safety analysis. Therefore, the proposed action does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Increasing the allowed average water temperature of the UHS by 2 
 deg.F in TS 3.7.9, ``Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),'' has no impact on 
plant operation. Operating at the proposed higher temperature limit 
does not introduce new failure mechanisms for systems, structures or 
components. The engineering evaluations performed to support the 
change to UHS temperature limit provide the basis to conclude that 
the equipment will operate acceptably at elevated temperatures. The 
current design basis analyses and calculations assume a UHS 
temperature of 100  deg.F, and contain operating margins to account 
for potential degradations in material condition (e.g., tube 
plugging) which are more severe than currently present. Together 
with these operating margins, design and construction codes applied 
to the affected structures, systems and components provide 
additional margins that are sufficient to accommodate the proposed 
temperature change.
    Therefore, the proposed temporary change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

[[Page 42896]]

3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?

    The proposed action allows operation with the UHS temperature 
 102  deg.F through September 30, 2001. 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. Further 
evaluations have determined acceptable component performance at 102 
deg.F. This temperature increase will not significantly change the 
operational characteristics or the design of any equipment or 
system. The identified equipment margins are sufficient to ensure 
that the post-accident response is not significantly affected. Thus, 
the proposed increase in temperature does not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    Therefore, the proposed temporary change does not involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.

Overall Conclusion

    Based upon the above assessments and evaluations, we have 
concluded that the proposed temporary change to the TS involves no 
significant hazards consideration.

    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 September 14, 2001, 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, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/CFR/index.html. If there are problems in accessing the 
document, contact the Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to [email protected]. 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 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

[[Page 42897]]

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, 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 Edward 
J. Cullen, Jr., Vice President and General Counsel, Exelon Generation 
Company, LLC, 300 Exelon Way KSB 3-W, Kennett Square, PA 19348, 
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 August 2, 2001, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August, 2001.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mahesh Chawla,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-20533 Filed 8-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P