[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 195 (Monday, October 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52472-52475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25625]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-305]


Wisconsin Public Service Company, Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company and Madison Gas and Electric 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-43 issued to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Wisconsin Power 
and Light Company, and Madison Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), 
for operation of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, located in Kewaunee 
County, Wisconsin.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
requirements related to the low temperature overpressure protection 
(LTOP) system. Specifically, the LTOP curve would be modified to define 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G pressure temperature limitations for LTOP 
evaluation through the end of operating cycle (EOC) 33. In addition, 
the LTOP enabling temperature and the temperature required for starting 
a reactor coolant pump would be changed consistent with the design 
basis for the LTOP system. Finally, the TS bases would be changed 
consistent with the changes described above.
    In a letter dated September 27, 1996, the licensee requested that 
this amendment application be treated exigently. The current LTOP curve 
is applicable through EOC 21 or 18.40 effective full-power years 
(EFPY). The startup for cycle 22 is scheduled for October 22, 1996. Due 
to time constraints, sufficient time is not available to permit the 
customary public notice in advance of this action. This proposed 
amendment supersedes a previously submitted proposed amendment on this 
subject dated April 30, 1996, which was published in the Federal 
Register on May 22, 1996 (61 FR 25714). The new submittal was necessary 
in order to address NRC concerns with the original submittal.
    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:

    The proposed change was reviewed in accordance with the 
provisions of 10 CFR 50.92 to show no significant hazards exist. The 
proposed change will not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The LTOP setpoint, revised enabling temperature, and revised P/T 
[pressure/temperature] limits reflected in proposed Figure TS 3.1-4 
ensure that the Appendix G pressure/temperature limits are not 
exceeded, and therefore, help ensure that RCS [reactor coolant 
system] integrity is maintained. The changes do not modify the 
reactor coolant system pressure boundary, nor make any physical 
changes to the facility design, material, construction standards, or 
setpoints. The LTOP valve setpoint remains at  500 psig. 
The LTOP enabling temperature based on Figure TS 3.1-4 is 355  deg.F 
and is consistent with BTP RSB 5-2 guidance of RTNDT + 90 
deg.F. The revised enabling temperature is greater than the 338 
deg.F value in the current TS. A higher enabling temperature ensures 
that the LTOP system is available for the prevention of non-ductile 
failure over a larger operating window. The probability of a LTOP 
event occurring is independent of the pressure-temperature limits 
for the RCS pressure boundary and enabling temperature. Therefore, 
the probability of a LTOP event is not increased.
    The calculation of pressure temperature limits in accordance 
with approved regulatory methods provides assurance that reactor 
pressure vessel fracture toughness requirements are met and the 
integrity of the RCS pressure boundary is maintained. Similar 
methodology was used in calculations to support approved amendment 
120 to the Kewaunee Technical Specifications dated April 26, 1995. 
The material property bases, including chemistry factor and initial 
reference temperature for the unirradiated material (RTNDT), 
and margin terms, used for this PA are more conservative than that 
used in the current TS.
    The PT limits reflected in proposed Figure TS 3.1-4 are based on 
the following criteria:
    (a) An initial RTNDT value of -56  deg.F. Drop weight 
testing of Kewaunee surveillance material was performed by the 
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and documented in WCAP 14042, 
Revision 1, dated January 1995 with a resultant initial RTNDT 
of -50  deg.F. Testing of sister plant surveillance material 
resulted in an initial RTNDT of -30  deg.F. The mean value for 
all Linde 1092 weld heats in -50.7  deg.F. Therefore, use of the 
generic value of -56  deg.F (for welds made with Linde 1092 flux) 
with a larger margin term was deemed more conservative and 
acceptable for this evaluation.
    (b) Paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of 10 CFR 50.61. Paragraph 
(c)(2)(ii)(A) of 10 CFR 50.61 requires that licensees determine a 
material-specific value of chemistry factor when the surveillance 
data is deemed credible according to the criteria of paragraph 
(c)(2)(I) of 10 CFR 50.61. Reference 3 documents WPSC's evaluation 
which concludes that the KNPP surveillance capsule data satisfy the 
credibility criteria. The calculated material-specific chemistry 
factor value is 190.6  deg.F (based on KNPP surveillance capsule 
data from capsules V, R, P, and S). Adjustment of this chemistry 
factor has been accomplished by multiplying by 1.18, the ratio of 
the best estimate chemistry factor for heat IP3571 to the chemistry 
factor for the Kewaunee surveillance weld. This results in a 
chemistry factor value of 224.9  deg.F.
    (c) Neutron fluence (E greater than 1 MeV) projections through 
[the] end of operating cycle 33. The use of predicted fluence values 
through the end of operating cycle 33 is appropriately considered 
within the calculations in accordance with standard industry 
methodology previously docketed under WCAP 13227 and WCAP 14279. The 
neutron exposure projections utilized for calculation of the 
reference temperature were multiplied by a factor of 1.11 to adjust 
for biases observed between cycle specific calculations and the 
results of neutron dosimetry for the four surveillance capsules 
removed from the KNPP reactor. The factor of 1.11 was derived by 
taking the average of the measured to calculation (M/C) flux ratios 
obtained from the dosimetry results of capsules V, R, P, and S 
removed from the KNPP reactor vessel. The resulting effect of using 
predicted fluence values through the end of cycle 33 instead of 
cycle 21 is to require the [plant to evaluate LTOP transients to 
more limiting requirements].
    Additional conservatism from a more conservative material 
property basis and higher projected fluence values is readily 
illustrated by the increase in magnitude of EOCNDT1/4T from 
212.94  deg.F (derived from the material property basis used in the 
current TS) to 264.46oF used for this PA. The proposed PT limits are 
shifted to a lower pressure and higher temperature, which is more 
conservative.
    The changes do not adversely affect the integrity of the RCS 
such that its function in the control of radiological consequences 
is affected. In addition, the changes do not affect any fission 
barrier. The changes do not degrade or prevent the response of the 
LTOP relief valve or other safety-related systems to

[[Page 52473]]

previously evaluated accidents. In addition, the changes do not 
alter any assumption previously made in the radiological 
consequences evaluations nor affect the mitigation of the 
radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 
Therefore, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated will 
not be increased.
    Thus, operation of KNPP in accordance with the PA does not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different type of accident 
from an accident previously evaluated.
    The enabling temperature and Appendix G pressure temperature 
limitations were prepared using methods derived from the ASME Boiler 
and Pressure Vessel Code and the criteria set forth in NRC 
Regulatory Standard Review Plan 5.3.2. The changes do not cause the 
initiation of any accident nor create any new credible limiting 
failure for safety-related systems and components. The changes do 
not result in any event previously deemed incredible being made 
credible. As such, it does not create the possibility of an accident 
different than previously evaluated.
    The changes do not have any adverse effect on the ability of the 
safety-related systems to perform their intended safety functions. 
Since the enabling temperature is higher, the LTOP system is 
available for prevention of non-ductile failure over a wide 
operating window. The new LTOP operating window (i.e., less than or 
equal to 355  deg.F) is within the existing band for the residual 
heat removal system; operating procedures allow the LTOP system to 
be placed into service at less than 400  deg.F. The proposed changes 
do not make physical changes to the plant or create new failure 
modes. Therefore, it will not create the possibility of a 
malfunction of equipment important to safety different than 
previously evaluated. Thus, the PA does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The use of Paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) of 10 CFR 50.61, chemistry 
factor ratio of 1.18, initial reference temperature of -56  deg.F, 
and fluence values through EOC [end of cycle] 33 does not modify the 
reactor coolant system pressure boundary, nor make any physical 
changes to the LTOP setpoint or system design. Proposed Figure TS 
3.1-4 was prepared in accordance with regulatory requirements and 
requires evaluation of LTOP events to the more conservative material 
property basis and more limiting requirements of neutron exposure 
projections of 33.41 EFPY instead of 18.40 EFPY.
    Therefore, the PA does not create the possibility of a new or 
different type of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The Appendix G pressure temperature limitations were prepared 
using methods derived from the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 
and the criteria set forth in NRC Regulatory Standard Review Plan 
5.3.2. These documents along with the calculational limitations 
specified in 10 CFR 50.61 are an acceptable method for implementing 
the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendices G and H. Inherent 
conservatism in the P/T limits resulting from these documents 
include:
    a. An assumed defect in the reactor vessel wall with a depth 
equal to \1/4\ of the thickness of the vessel wall (\1/4\T) and a 
length equal to 1\1/2\ times the thickness of the vessel wall.
    b. Assumed reference flaw oriented in both longitudinal and 
circumferential directions and limiting material property. At KNPP, 
the only weld in the core region is oriented in the circumferential 
direction.
    c. A factor of safety of 2 is applied to the membrane stress 
intensity factor.
    d. The limiting toughness is based upon a reference value 
(KIR) which is a lower bound on the dynamic crack initiation or 
arrest toughness.
    e. A 2-sigma margin term is applied in determining the adjusted 
reference temperature (ART) that is used to calculate the limiting 
toughness.
    Similar methodology was used in calculations to support approved 
amendment 120 dated April 26, 1995. Beyond the conservatism 
described above, WPSC [Wisconsin Public Service Corporation] has 
incorporated the following additional margin in preparing this PA:
    a. The reactor coolant pump starting restrictions of TS 
3.1.a.1.c reflect the more limiting LTOP enabling temperature of 355 
 deg.F consistent with the design basis for the LTOP system.
    b. The LTOP enabling temperature based on Figure TS 3.1-4 is 355 
 deg.F and is more conservative than the 338oF value in the current 
TS.
    c. The calculated material-specific chemistry factor value of 
190.6oF (based upon KNPP surveillance capsule data from capsules V, 
R, P, and S) has been multiplied by 1.18 yielding an adjusted 
chemistry factor value of 224.9oF to account for chemical 
composition differences between the best estimate value for weld 
heat IP3571 and the Kewaunee surveillance weld material. d. The 
neutron exposure projections were multiplied by a factor of 1.11 to 
adjust for biases observed between cycle specific calculations and 
the results of neutron dosimetry for the four surveillance capsules 
removed from the KNPP reactor. The factor of 1.11 was derived by 
taking the average of the measured to calculation (M/C) flux ratios 
obtained from the dosimetry results of capsules V, R, P, and S 
removed from the KNPP reactor vessel. Additional conservatisms 
beyond that described above but not used in development of the 
proposed TS and Figure include: (a) A 2 inch diameter spring loaded 
safety valve set at 480 psig located in the LTOP system. At 500 
psig, the LTOP relief valve setpoint, the relieving capacity of this 
smaller valve is 230 gpm. (b) The actual LTOP relief valve capacity 
is at least 10% greater than the capacity used in the design and 
setpoint analyses. This is in accordance with the requirements of 
Section III NC-7000. (c) Assumptions in the overpressure transient 
analyses are conservative relative to the actual Kewaunee reactor 
coolant system (RCS) and operating practices:
    1. The RCS was assumed to be rigid with respect to metal 
expansion.
    2. No credit was taken for the shrinkage effect caused by low 
temperature safety injection water added to higher temperature 
reactor coolant.
    3. No credit was taken for the reduction in reactor coolant bulk 
modulus at RCS temperatures above 100 deg.F (constant bulk modulus 
at all RCS temperatures).
    4. The entire volume of water of the steam generator secondary 
was assumed available for heat transfer to the primary. In reality, 
the liquid immediately adjacent and above the tube bundle would be 
the primary source of energy in the transient.
    5. The overall steam generator heat transfer coefficient, U, was 
assumed to be the free convective heat transfer coefficient of the 
secondary, hsec. The forced convective heat transfer 
coefficient of the primary, hpri and the tube metal resistance 
have been ignored thus resulting in a conservative (high) 
coefficient.
    6. The reactor coolant pump start time assumed in the heat input 
analysis was 9-10 seconds; whereas, the Kewaunee pump startup time 
is 25-30 seconds.
    An alternative methodology to the safety margins required by 
Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50 has been developed by the ASME Working 
Group on Operating Plant Criteria. This methodology is contained in 
ASME Code Case N-514. The Code Case N-514 provides criteria to 
determine pressure limits during LTOP events that avoid certain 
unnecessary operational restrictions, provide adequate margins 
against failure of the reactor pressure vessel, and reduce the 
potential for unnecessary activation of the relief valve used for 
LTOP. Specifically, the ASME Code Case N-514 allows determination of 
the setpoint for LTOP events such that the maximum pressure in the 
vessel would not exceed 110% of the P/T limits of the existing ASME 
Appendix G; and redefines the enabling temperature at a coolant 
temperature less than 200 deg.F or a reactor vessel metal 
temperature less than RTNDT + 50 deg.F, whichever is greater. 
Code Case N-514, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection,'' has 
been approved by the ASME Code Committee but not yet approved for 
use in Regulatory Guide 1.147. The content of this code case has 
been incorporated into Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME Code and 
published in the 1993 Addenda to Section XI. It is expected that 
next revision of 10 CFR 50.55a will endorse the 1993 Addenda and 
Appendix G of Section XI. As stated above, this PA utilizes Appendix 
G limits and an enabling temperature corresponding to a reactor 
vessel metal temperature less than RTNDT + 90 deg.F, which is 
more conservative than the alternative methodology contained in Code 
Case N-514.
    The revised calculations meet the NRC acceptance criteria for 
the LTOP setpoint and system design as described in NRC Safety 
Evaluation Report (SER) dated September 6, 1985 which concluded that 
``the spectrum of postulated pressure transients would be mitigated 
* * * such that the temperature pressure limits of Appendix G to 10 
CFR 50 are maintained.''
    Use of the methodology set forth in the ASME Boiler and Pressure 
Vessel Code, NRC

[[Page 52474]]

Regulatory Standard Review Plan 5.3.2, 10 CFR 50.61, and 10 CFR 50 
Appendices G and H with the above additional margins ensures that 
proper limits and safety factors are maintained. Thus, the PA 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 
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 preventing startup 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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after 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 6, 1996, 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 University of Wisconsin, Cofrin Library, 
2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311-7001. 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 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 a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. 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

[[Page 52475]]

1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram 
Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to Gail 
H. Marcus: 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 Bradley D. Jackson, Esq., Foley and 
Lardner, P. O. Box 1497, Madison, Wisconsin 53701-1497, 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 27, 1996, 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 University of Wisconsin, Cofrin 
Library, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54311-7001.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of October 1996.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-25625 Filed 10-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P