[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4266-4267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1812]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-305]


Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-43 Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendment to Facility Operating License DPR-43 
issued to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (the licensee) for 
operation of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, located in Kewaunee 
County, Wisconsin.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 4.2.b, ``Steam Generator Tubes,'' to extend the use of the 
length-based pressure boundary definition (L criterion) for the 
Westinghouse steam generator hybrid expansion joint sleeved tubes 
through the operating cycle 24 (approximately from May 2000 to Fall of 
2001). The existing TS 4.2.b.4.c restricts use of L criterion to 
operating cycle 23 which is scheduled to end in mid-April 2000.
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination 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. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated?
    The extension of the L criterion for cycle 24 does not change 
the results of the structural testing performed in 1998. The 
physical characteristic (undegraded hardroll length) of the pressure 
boundary definition also does not change. The L criterion will 
continue to be implemented as described in the original, approved 
amendment. The conservatisms upon which NRC approval was based still 
exist. Therefore, the conservatisms still provide assurance that 
safety margins will continue to be met and uncertainties will remain 
acceptably low. Extending the use of the L criterion does not 
increase the probability of a MSLB [main steam line break] event. 
Based on the above, it may be concluded that application of the 
parent tube pressure boundary L criterion through cycle 24 will not 
result in a significant increase in the probability of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The conservatively bounding primary-to-secondary MSLB leak rate 
of 1 gpm [gallons-per-minute], which was approved for cycle 23, will 
continue to be applied to the calculation for postulated MSLB 
leakage for cycle 24. Application of this leak rate to the 
postulated leakage calculation will continue to ensure primary-to-
secondary leakage will not exceed the current maximum allowable 
during a MSLB event. Maintenance of the current maximum allowable 
primary-to-secondary leak rate during a MSLB event ensures off-site 
doses will not exceed a small fraction of 10 CFR 100 and control 
room doses will not exceed GDC [General Design Criteria] -19 
criteria. Therefore, it may be concluded that the application of the 
parent tube pressure boundary L criterion through cycle 24 will not 
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated?
    The extension of the L criterion through cycle 24 will not 
introduce a change to the design basis or operation of the plant. 
Neither the physical characteristics nor implementation of the L 
criterion has been changed. As determined in the original L 
criterion submittal, the continued implementation of a parent tube 
pressure boundary does not effect or interact with other portions of 
the reactor coolant system. Continued implementation of the L 
criterion does not effect any other tubes outside the repaired area 
or any other components. The qualification testing performed in 1998 
remains valid and supports the conclusion that the joint retains 
structural integrity consistent with RG [Regulatory Guide]--1.121 
and leakage integrity with regards to 10 CFR [Code of Federal 
Regulations] 100 and GDC-19. Any hypothetical accident as a result 
of PTIs [parent tube indications] left in service by the L criterion 
continues to be bounded by the existing tube rupture analysis. 
Therefore, application of the L criterion through cycle 24 will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    The safety factors used to establish the L criterion continue to 
be consistent with safety factors in the ASME [American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers] Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code used in the SG 
[steam generator] design. Based on the sleeve-to-tube geometry, it 
is unrealistic to consider that application of L criterion could 
result in single tube leak rates exceeding the normal makeup 
capacity during normal operating conditions. The performance 
characteristics of postulated degraded HEJ [hybrid expansion joint] 
sleeves have been verified through testing to retain structural 
integrity and preclude significant leakage during both normal 
operating and MSLB conditions. Conservatisms that allowed approval 
of the L criterion for cycle 23 still exist and apply as discussed 
in the safety evaluation of this submittal. Leakage rates determined 
and approved for the original L criterion submittal will continue to 
be implemented. Therefore, there is not a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety for extension of the L criterion through cycle 
24.

    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 30 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 30-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 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the

[[Page 4267]]

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 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 February 25, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 20555-0001, 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 close of business on 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 Bradley D. 
Jackson, Esq., Foley and Lardner, P.O. Box 1497, Madison, WI 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 June 22, 1999, as supplemented January 
17, 2000, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of January 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Claudia M. Craig,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-1812 Filed 1-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P