ML022480120

Notice of Consideration, Increase Licensed Reactor Core Power Level

ML022480120
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	09/05/2002
From:	Spaulding D NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD3
To:	Cayia F Nuclear Management Co
References
TAC MB4956, TAC MB4957
Download: ML022480120 (10)

Text

September 5, 2002 Mr. Fred J. Cayia Acting Site Vice President Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC 6610 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241

SUBJECT:

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NOS. MB4956 AND MB4957)

Dear Mr. Cayia:

Enclosed is a copy of Notice of Consideration or issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing, for your application dated April 30, 2002. The proposed amendment would increase the licensed reactor core power level by 1.4 percent from 1518.5 MWt to 1540 MWt.

The notice is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely,

/RA by John Lamb for/

Deirdre W. Spaulding, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301

Enclosure:

Notice cc w/encl: See next page

ML022480120 OFFICE PDIII-1/PM PDIII-1/LA PDIII-1/SC NAME JLamb for RBouling LRaghavan DSpaulding DATE 09/05/02 09/05/02 09/05/02 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. John H. ONeill, Jr. Ms. Sarah Jenkins Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Electric Division 2300 N Street, NW Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Washington, DC 20037-1128 P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Mr. Richard R. Grigg President and Chief Operating Officer Mr. Roy A. Anderson Wisconsin Electric Power Company Executive Vice President and 231 West Michigan Street Chief Nuclear Officer Milwaukee, WI 53201 Nuclear Management Company, LLC 700 First Street Site Licensing Manager Hudson, WI 54016 Point Beach Nuclear Plant Nuclear Management Company, LLC Nuclear Asset Manager 6610 Nuclear Road Wisconsin Electric Power Company Two Rivers, WI 54241 231 West Michigan Street Milwaukee, WI 53201 Mr. Ken Duveneck Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks 13017 State Highway 42 Mishicot, WI 54228 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin P.O. Box 7854 Madison, WI 53707-7854 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 801 Warrenville Road Lisle, IL 60532-4351 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, WI 54241 March 2002

7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 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 Commissions regulations.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commissions 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 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 licensees 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 NRCs 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 Commissions "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 Commissions 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 pdr@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 petitioners right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioners property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the 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 petitioners right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.

(ii) The nature and extent of the petitioners property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.

(iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioners 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."

possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioners 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 Commissions 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 hearingdocket@nrc.gov. 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 OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to John H. ONeill, 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 Commissions 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 Systems (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 pdr@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of September 2002.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/RA/

John G. Lamb, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate III Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation