[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