[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48198-48200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4419]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; 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 Nuclear Management Company, LLC (the 
licensee), for operation of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP), Units 
1 and 2, located in the Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, 
Wisconsin.
    The proposed amendments would revise the licensing basis as 
described in the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Final Safety Analysis Report 
to incorporate the proposed Unit 1 reactor vessel head (RVH) drop 
analysis and the revised Unit 2 RVH drop analysis.
    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 
requests involve 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 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, which is presented below:

    1. Would the proposed amendment involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change incorporates the revised heavy load analysis 
into the PBNP FSAR. This analysis involves the postulated drop of 
the RVH [reactor vessel head] over a reactor vessel containing fuel 
assemblies. Assuming that the BMI [bottom mounted instrument] tubes 
are severed as a result of displacement of the reactor vessel, a 
decrease in reactor coolant inventory will occur. Thus, a RVH drop 
can be postulated as an initiator of a Loss of Coolant Accident 
(LOCA) under shutdown conditions.
    A RVH drop is of sufficiently low probability such that, for 
Unit 1, the probability of a LOCA is not significantly increased 
over the current licensing basis large break LOCA. For Unit 2, the 
probability is unchanged from the previously approved RVH drop 
analysis.
    For Unit 1, supplemental administrative controls have been 
established to assure continued availability of multiple independent 
sources of water to provide core cooling and makeup water well in 
excess of the postulated LOCA. Containment closure will also be 
established during this evolution. No pressurization of the reactor 
coolant system will occur as a result of this postulated event. For 
Unit 2, the previously approved administrative controls have been 
revised, consistent with those submitted for Unit 1 herein, to 
provide additional makeup water capacity.
    The calculated radiological consequences of the postulated RVH 
drop are within those calculated for the current licensing basis 
large break LOCA. Therefore, the consequences of a LOCA are not 
increased. The proposed change is consistent with safety analysis 
assumptions and resultant consequences. All Technical Specifications 
are satisfied and required equipment is operable. Therefore, this 
change would not

[[Page 48199]]

significantly increase the probability of occurrence or consequences 
of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Would the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated?
    Response: No.
    For Unit 1, the proposed change incorporates the revised heavy 
load analysis into the PBNP FSAR. This analysis involves the 
postulated drop of the RVH over a reactor vessel containing fuel 
assemblies. Assuming that the BMI tubes are severed as a result of 
displacement of the reactor vessel, a decrease in reactor coolant 
inventory will occur. Thus, a RVH drop can be postulated as an 
initiator of a LOCA under shutdown conditions.
    Adequate core cooling and makeup water remains available from 
core cooling water systems. Maintaining core cooling and makeup and 
closing containment assures that the drop of a RVH is bounded by the 
existing licensing basis analysis for a LOCA. The drop of a RVH was 
previously evaluated by the NRC for Unit 2 in a safety evaluation 
dated June 24, 2005. Therefore, the proposed changes would not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Would the proposed amendment result in a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    For Unit 1, the proposed change incorporates the revised heavy 
load analysis into the PBNP FSAR. This analysis involves the 
postulated drop of the RVH over a reactor vessel containing fuel 
assemblies. Assuming that the BMI tubes are severed as a result of 
displacement of the reactor vessel, a decrease in reactor coolant 
inventory will occur. Thus, a RVH drop can be postulated as an 
initiator of a LOCA under shutdown conditions.
    The frequency and consequences of a RVH drop are comparable to 
or within those of the current licensing basis large break LOCA. The 
proposed change does not alter any safety limits, limiting safety 
system settings, or limiting conditions for operation as defined in 
the Technical Specifications. The drop of a RVH was previously 
evaluated by the NRC for Unit 2 in a safety evaluation dated June 
24, 2005. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not result in 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 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 amendments until the 
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendments before expiration of the 
60-day period provided that its final determination is that the 
amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, 
the Commission may issue the amendments prior to the expiration of the 
30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place 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 
(PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendments 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 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 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/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition 
for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a 
presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, 
will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the 
Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
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/requestor 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. 
The petition must include 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/requestor 
who fails to satisfy

[[Page 48200]]

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.
    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.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected]; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and 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 the Jonathan Rogoff, 
Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management 
Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, attorney for the 
licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendments dated July 24, 2005, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, File Public Area O1 F21, 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 10th day of August 2005.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Harold K. Chernoff,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E5-4419 Filed 8-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P