ML20209G328
| ML20209G328 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1987 |
| From: | Wagner D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209G334 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8704300521 | |
| Download: ML20209G328 (9) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
o-7590-01' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATIONDETERMINATIONANDOPPORfUNITYFORHEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) 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 Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, located in the Town of Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, Wisconsin.
l The amendments would modify Technical Specification 15.5.3 to remove certain limitations on the repair of leaking fuel rods so long as the repairs l
proposed during a given outage can be justified by a cycle-specific reload analysis. The current Technical Specifications allow repair of a fuel assembly which is suspected of leaking by substitution of an inert rodio~r a 1haking rod, or removal of the leaking rod leaving a vacancy or " water hole."
This repair method is presently limited to no more than one fuel rod in any single assembly and no more than six such modified assemblies may be in the core at any time. The proposed amendments wculd remove these limitations so 8704300521 P70422 DR ADOCK g500 6
. lone as a cycle-specific reload analysis is completed which justifies that safety limits would not be violated. Additionally, the proposed amendments would require that should filler rods be inserted into the vacancies, these rods will consist of either Zircaloy 4 or stainless steel in accordance with the licensee's applications for amendments dated March 12 and April 10, 1987.
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 Comission'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.
The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for detemining whether a significant hazards consideration esists by providing certain examples in 51 FR 7751. The examples of actions which involvenosignificanthazardsconsiderationincludeExample(iii)which states: "For a nu61 ear power reactor, a change resulting from a nuclear reactor core reloading, if no fuel assemblies significantly different from those found previously acceptable to the NRC for a previous core at the
O facility in question are involved. This assumes that no significant changes are made to the acceptance criteria for the technical specifications, that the analytical methods used to demonstrate conformance with the technical specifications and regulations are not significantly changed, and that the NRC has previously found such methods acceptable.
The licensee is not proposing to load fuel assemblies significantly different from those already approved for their fa,cilities by the NRC. The licensee is merely requesting to eliminate the restrictions currently in effect relating to the number of assemblies and rods per assembly which may be repaired in accordance with approved repair procedures. The licensee has also indicated that all applicable safety criteria and margins will be met as supported by a cycle-specific reload analysis.
The licensee has evaluated the proposed change in accordance with the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92 to determine if the proposed amendments involve a significant hazards consideration. A proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance l
with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (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.
The license has stated that the first criterion is met. The prese,nt Technical Specification allows for fuel rod substitution or vacancies. While the proposed change removes the limits specified for such cases, the requirement
~
Se I -
of satisfying a core-specific reload analysis remains in effect. By taking into account any fuel rod substitutions or vacancies, that analysis will verify that all applicable safety margins as defined in the licensing documents are not reduced. Therefore, there should be no increase in the probability or consequences of an accident.
The licensee also states that the second criterion is met. While fuel assemblies containing the rod substitutions or vac,ancies represent a change in the physical core configuration, it is not a significant change. Any such changes will be accounted for in the reload analysis. The proposed change states that rod substitutions or vacancies must be justified by reload analyses; therefore, the changes should not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
The third criterion is also met for the same reasons described above. If the physical parameters of the reload core are evaluated as being within previously defined acceptance criteria, then a reduction in the margin of safety is precluded.
Based on the above, the staff proposes to determine that the amendments involve no significant hazards considerations.
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. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
l l
4 Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Written coments may also be delivered to Room 4000, Maryland National Bank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland, from 8:15 AM to 5:00 PM. Copies of written coments l
received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to l
intervene is discussed below.
By May 27th 87, the licensee may file a repest 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 writian petition for leave to intervene. Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Comission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above l
date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission 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 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 en the petitioner's 1,nterest. 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described l
above.
Not later than fifteen (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, and the bases for each contention' set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a siipplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be pemitted to participate as a party.
j Those pemitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the
~7-f l
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 Comission will make a final detemination 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 Comission may issue the amendments and make them effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments.
I If the final determination is that the amendments involve a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the iss~uance of any amendment.
Normally, the Comission will not issue the amendments 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 exanple, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Comission may issue the license amendments before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The final detemination will consider all public and State coments received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
. 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 Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Comission by a, toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to David Wigginton, Acting Project Director:
petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy i
t of the petition should also be sent to the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear i
Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to Gerald Charnoff, Esq.,
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
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 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the request should be granted based upon a balancing of 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 amendments which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public
.g.
z Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Joseph P.
Mann Library, 1516 Sixteenth Street, Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 22ndday of 1987.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
I David H. Wagner, Project Manager Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor Prcjects l
=
s i
3 3 4