[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57630-57632]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-23092]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301]


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; 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 amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-24 and DPR-27 issued to the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (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 increase the licensed reactor core 
power level by 1.4 percent from 1518.5 MWt to 1540 MWt.
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 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 the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The comprehensive analytical efforts performed to support the 
proposed change included a review of the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis 
Report] Chapter 14 Accident Analysis, the Nuclear Steam Supply 
System (NSSS) systems and components, Electrical Equipment, and 
Balance of Plant Systems. There are no changes as a result of the 
MUR power uprate to the design or operation of the plant that could 
affect system, component or accident mitigative functions. All 
systems and components will function as designed and the applicable 
performance requirements

[[Page 57631]]

have been evaluated and found to be acceptable.
    The reduction in power measurement uncertainty allows for most 
of the safety analyses to continue to be used without modification. 
This is because the safety analyses were performed or evaluated at 
either 1650 MWt or 102 percent of 1518.5 MWt. This supports a core 
power level of 1540 MWt with a measurement uncertainty of 0.6 
percent. Radiological consequences of Chapter 14 accidents were 
assessed previously using uprated cores and continue to be bounding. 
The FSAR Chapter 14 analyses continue to demonstrate compliance with 
the relevant accident analyses acceptance criteria. Therefore, there 
is no significant increase in the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    The primary loop components (reactor vessel, reactor internals, 
control rod drive mechanisms, loop piping and supports, reactor 
coolant pump, steam generators, and pressurizer) were evaluated at 
1650 MWt and continue to comply with their applicable structural 
limits and will continue to perform their intended design functions. 
Thus, there is no significant increase in the probability of a 
structural failure of these components.
    All of the NSSS systems will continue to perform their intended 
design functions during normal and accident conditions. The 
auxiliary systems and components continue to comply with the 
applicable structural limits and will continue to perform their 
intended functions. The NSSS/Balance of Plant (BOP) interface 
systems were evaluated and will continue to perform their intended 
design functions. Plant electrical equipment was also evaluated and 
will continue to perform their intended functions. No equipment 
modifications to these systems are planned for this change. 
Therefore, there is no significant increase in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a new or different kind 
of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single 
failures are introduced as a result of the proposed change. All 
systems, structures and components previously required for the 
mitigation of an event remain capable of fulfilling their intended 
design function at the uprated power level. The proposed change has 
no adverse effects on any safety-related systems or component and 
does not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety-
related system. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. Operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant in accordance with 
the proposed amendments does not result in a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Operation at the 1540 MWt core power does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. Most of the current 
accident analyses and system and component analyses had been 
previously performed at uprated core powers that exceed the 
[measurement uncertainty recapture] MUR uprated core power. 
Evaluations have been performed for analyses that were done at 
nominal core power and have been found acceptable for the MUR power 
uprate. Analyses of the primary fission product barriers at uprated 
core powers have concluded that all relevant design basis criteria 
remain satisfied in regard to integrity and compliance with the 
regulatory acceptance criteria. As appropriate, all evaluations have 
been either reviewed and approved by the NRC or are in compliance 
with applicable regulatory review guidance and standards. Therefore, 
the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a 
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 requests involve 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 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By October 11, 2002, 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,\1\ which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in 
accessing the document, contact the Public Document Room Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most recent version of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the 
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), 
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. Those provisions 
are extant and still applicable to petitions to intervene. Those 
provisions are as follows: ``In all other circumstances, such ruling 
body or officer shall, in ruling on--
    (1) A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing, 
consider the following factors, among other things:
    (i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding.
    (ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
    (iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in 
the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    (2) The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a 
contention if:
    (i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in 
the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set

[[Page 57632]]

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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of 
the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to 
intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of 
the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-
1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the petition for 
leave to intervene and request for hearing should also be sent to the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in 
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested 
that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 
301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the 
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be 
sent to John H. O'Neill, Jr., 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 April 30, 2002, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of September, 2002.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John G. Lamb,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-23092 Filed 9-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P