ML20140F911
| ML20140F911 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1997 |
| From: | Gundrum L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140F915 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9706130288 | |
| Download: ML20140F911 (9) | |
Text
...
-_._.- - -.~.-.-
h 7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
i WISCONSIN ELFCTRIC POWER COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONS!DERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING I
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.
9706130288 970605 PDR ADOCK 05000266 P
ppg 4
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 J
the conclusions provided in the September 30, 1996, "No Significant Hazards 1
Consideration" were not altered by the additional information provided.
4
]
The June 3,1997, submittal requested the proposed amendments be handled 1
i l
on an exigent basis based on the current schedule which indicates that Unit 2 restart is scheduled for June 25, 1997, and Unit I restart is scheduled for l
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 1
j licensee states that the circumstances of exigency were not avoidable, based f
on the need to refine and revise the submittals due to emergent issues, i
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 l
intentional delay on the part of the licensee.
5 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 i
accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1). involve a significant i
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 1
J evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of l
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant 4
4 4
\\
l.
1 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 N
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.
l (1) The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the l
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
j 1
i j
The proposed changes would increase the acceptance criteria for the l
efficiency of the control room emergency filtration system charcoal adsorbers l
from 90 percent to 99 percent, eliminate the de.cignation of single-unit and i
j two-unit operational requirements for the component cooling water system since four component cooling water pumps (two per unit) are required to be operable.
i The revised bases of the charcoal adsorber testing would reference ASTM 1
l
[American Society for Testing and Materials) D3803-89. The revised operation of the containment cooling and iodine removal system, corrponent cooling water i
system, and the service water system would be required because of changes in i
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 l
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.
4.
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 J
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 4
i 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 requects involve no significant hazards consideration.
l 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 4
final determination.
1
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 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 Duilding, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By July 30, 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 Comission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic j
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 l
Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, i
i 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 i
appropriate order.
4 As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall 3
set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the i
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
g
. 4, 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
1
.8 -
opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including i
the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
j If the amendments are issued before the expiration of the 30-day hearing period, the Comission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
If a hearing is requested, the final i
determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
f If the final determination is that the amendment requests involve no i
significant hazards consideration, the Comission may issue the amendments j
and make them imediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a j
hearing. Any hearing held would take place k.ter issuance of the amendments.
l If the final determination is that the amendment requests involve a l
l significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendments.
i l
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1
i Comission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Services l
i Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission'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 Comission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to 1
Gerald Charnoff, Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee. Nontimely filings of l
petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions i
and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and j
k 4
9,
Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon
~
a balancing of the factors specified ~1n 10 CFR 2i714(a)(1)(1)-(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 i
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 j
Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of June 1997.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
m Linda L. Gundrum, Project Manager Project Directorate 111-1 Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV l
i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
/
\\
- t