[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
