[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31636-31638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-15271]
[[Page 31636]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]
Wisconsin Electric Power 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 License Nos.
DPR-24 and DPR-27 issued to Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Units
1 and 2, located in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
The proposed amendments would change Technical Specification
requirements related to the service water system, component cooling
water system, containment cooling and iodine removal systems, auxiliary
electrical systems, and the control room emergency filtration system.
The September 30, 1996, application was noticed in the Federal Register
on November 19, 1996 (61 FR 58905). The November 26, and December 12,
1996, February 13, and March 5, 1997, applications were noticed in the
Federal Register on April 9, 1997 (62 FR 17244). The supplemental
applications dated April 2, April 16, May 9, and June 3, 1997, would
eliminate separate requirements for the component cooling water system
for single-unit and two-unit operation, revise the acceptance criteria
for laboratory testing of the control room emergency filtration system
charcoal adsorber banks from 90 percent to 99 percent, and supplement
additional information on the basis for acceptability of equipment
qualification analyses and dose assessments resulting from a loss-of-
coolant accident.
The licensee's supplements of November 26, and December 12, 1996,
February 13, March 5, April 2, April 16, May 9, and June 3, 1997,
stated that the conclusions provided in the September 30, 1996, ``No
Significant Hazards Consideration'' were not altered by the additional
information provided.
The June 3, 1997, submittal requested the proposed amendments be
handled on an exigent basis based on the current schedule which
indicates that Unit 2 restart is scheduled for June 25, 1997, and Unit
1 restart is scheduled for July 1, 1997, and failure of the issuance of
the amendments by these dates would result in prevention of Point
Beach's resumption of operation. The licensee states that the
circumstances of exigency were not avoidable, based on the need to
refine and revise the submittals due to emergent issues, principally
control room dose analyses. The NRC has determined that the licensee
used its best efforts to make a timely application for the proposed
changes and that exigent circumstances do exist and were not the result
of any intentional delay on the part of the licensee.
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
requests involve 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. The NRC staff has
reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below.
(1) The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes would increase the acceptance criteria for the
efficiency of the control room emergency filtration system charcoal
adsorbers from 90 percent to 99 percent, eliminate the designation of
single-unit and two-unit operational requirements for the component
cooling water system since four component cooling water pumps (two per
unit) are required to be operable. The revised bases of the charcoal
adsorber testing would reference ASTM [American Society for Testing and
Materials] D3803-89. The revised operation of the containment cooling
and iodine removal system, component cooling water system, and the
service water system would be required because of changes in
assumptions factored into revised design bases accident analyses and
the resultant impact on containment heat removal analyses, dose
assessment, and operation of the control room ventilation system. The
proposed changes in system operations were evaluated to ensure
equipment qualification requirements, post-accident sampling
capability, and doses within dose limits specified in 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19 were maintained within
regulatory limits. The consequences or probability of a previously
evaluated accident would, therefore, not significantly be increased.
(2) The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes as reflected in the technical specifications
are more conservative for the systems and component operation being
revised. The changes resulting from new analyses were evaluated, and no
new or different kind of accident is introduced since no modifications
to the actual design is postulated, only the manner in which the plant
is operated and accidents are analyzed. Therefore, a new or different
kind of accident would not be created.
(3) The proposed changes do not result in a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The proposed changes would increase the required number of operable
components for the component cooling water system and the service water
system and would increase the required efficiency of the control room
ventilation charcoal adsorbers and ensure equipment qualification
inside of the containment based on new containment pressure and
temperature analyses. Dose assessments for the exclusion area boundary,
low population zone, and control room are within regulatory
requirements for the most severe radiological event, a loss-of-coolant
accident. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
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 requests involve no significant hazards
consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received by close of business 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
[[Page 31637]]
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.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and
Publications 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 6D22, 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 July 10, 1997, 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 Joseph P. Mann Library, 1516 Sixteenth
Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin. 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 amendment requests 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 amendment requests 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: Docketing and
Services Branch, 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 Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman,
Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037,
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 September 30, 1996, as supplemented on
November 26, and December 12, 1996, February 13, March 5, April 2,
April 16, May 9, and June 3, 1997, which are 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 Joseph P. Mann Library, 1516 Sixteenth
Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 1997.
[[Page 31638]]
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linda L. Gundrum,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-15271 Filed 6-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
