[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54527-54529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26417]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]
Wisconsin Electric Power Company; 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.
DPR-24 and DPR-27, issued to Wisconsin Electric Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and
2, located in the Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS)
Section 15.1, ``Definitions,'' the basis for TS Section 15.3.1.G,
``Operational Limitations,'' and TS Figure 15.2.1-2, ``Reactor Core
Safety Limits, Point Beach Unit 2.'' The proposed changes would reduce
the reactor coolant system raw measured total flow rate limit and
reflect new reactor core safety limits for Unit 2.
The licensee stated that these changes may be required to support
full power operation of Unit 2 following its annual outage, which has
already begun. The licensee further stated that the submittal was
timely, based on the circumstances (a vendor analysis was required),
and that the exigency could not have been avoided. The staff agrees
with this conclusion.
[[Page 54528]]
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. Operation of this facility under the proposed Technical
Specifications will not create a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This proposed change reduces the Unit 2 Reactor Coolant System
[RCS] raw measured total flow rate limit by 4500 gpm. Evaluations
performed by Westinghouse and Wisconsin Electric have determined
that all safety analysis and regulatory requirements are still met
at the reduced flow rate limit without exceeding acceptable limits.
A reduction of the RCS flow limit does not affect any parameters
that could affect the probability of an accident. Therefore, there
is no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Operation of this facility under the proposed Technical
Specifications change will not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
This proposed change reduces the Unit 2 Reactor Coolant System
raw measured total flow rate limit by 4500 gpm. Evaluations
performed by Westinghouse and Wisconsin Electric have determined
that all the safety analysis requirements are still met at the
reduced flow rate limit. There is no physical change to the
facility, its systems, or its operation. Thus, a new or different
kind of accident cannot occur.
3. Operation of this facility under the proposed Technical
Specifications change will not create a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
This proposed change reduces the Unit 2 Reactor Coolant System
raw measured total flow rate limit by 4500 gpm. Evaluations
performed by the Westinghouse and Wisconsin Electric have determined
that all the safety analysis and regulatory requirements are still
met at the reduced flow rate limit. The current Revised Thermal
Design Procedure (RTDP) DNBR [departure from nucleate boiling ratio]
limit of 1.33 remains valid for the reduced flow conditions.
The most DNB [departure from nucleate boiling]-limiting, non-
LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] accidents were reanalyzed to
demonstrate this limit remains satisfied for the reduction in RCS
flow. The modifications to power level and core safety limits figure
for PBNP Unit 2 prevent the possibility of exceeding the core safety
limits. Therefore, this reduction in RCS total flow rate limit does
not reduce any existing 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
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 15 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 15-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 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 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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 November 8, 1995, 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, 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
[[Page 54529]]
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 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, 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. 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 Dr. Gail H. Marcus, Director, Project Directorate
PDIII-3: 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 sent to
the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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 13, 1995, as supplemented by
letter dated October 19, 1995, 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 19th day of October 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Allen G. Hansen,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-26417 Filed 10-20-95; 11:01 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P