5256 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 1997 / Notices

The as-found results of the first two

tests (1978 and 1979) did not meet the

acceptable leakage limit due to

excessive leakage from one valve in

1978 and from four valves in 1979. The

as-found results of the next six tests

were below the acceptable leakage limit.

The as-found results of the 1989 and

1990 tests did not meet the acceptable

leakage limit due to excessive leakage

from three valves in 1989 and from one

valve in 1990. For each of the tests that

did not meet the leakage limits, repairs

to the noted valves were conducted, and

the as-left values were well below

acceptable leakage limits. The licensee

reviewed the results of these ten LLRTs

and concluded that the failures, except

for one valve which was replaced in

1990, were random and non-recurring.

The licensee concluded that these

failures were not indicative of a poor

performance trend. The staff reviewed

the LLRT data provided by the licensee

as well as the methodology used by the

licensee to extrapolate LLRT data to a

30-month test interval and the staff

concluded that there is reasonable

assurance that the containment leakage

rate would be maintained within

acceptable limits with an LLRT interval

increase to 30 months.

Since the request for the exemption

allowing a 30-month LLRT test interval,

two more tests have been conducted. In

the first such test, conducted in 1992,

the leakage for all valves was less than

the minimum detectable for the test rig

in use. In the second such test,

conducted in 1994, the total leakage was

88 percent of the allowable value. The

test rig used in the 1994 LLRT allowed

the licensee to identify the valves that

contributed most to total leakage.

Maintenance was performed on these

valves and the as-left leakage was less

than 40 percent of the allowable limit.

Based on its review of all of the LLRT

data, the staff has concluded that there

is reasonable assurance that the

containment leak rate will remain

within acceptable limits if the LLRT

interval is extended by 41⁄2 months;

therefore, the application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances is not necessary to

achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12, that (1) the exemption described

in Section III are authorized by law, will

not endanger life or property, and are

otherwise in the public interest and (2)

special circumstances exist pursuant to

10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). Therefore, the

Commission hereby grants the following

amendment to the exemption dated

February 19, 1993: The Power Authority

of the State of New York is exempt from

the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.3, in that

the current interval between Type C

tests may be extended beyond 30

months for the Indian Point Nuclear

Generating Unit No. 3. The Type C tests

must be conducted during an outage

beginning no later than May 31, 1997.

This amendment applies to the current

test interval only.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (62 FR 3538).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of January 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–2688 Filed 2–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 30–02764–MLA; ASLBP No. 97–

722–01–MLA]

University of Cincinnati; Designation

of Presiding Officer

Pursuant to delegation by the

Commission dated December 29, 1972,

published in the Federal Register, 37

F.R. 28710 (1972), and Sections 2.105,

2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717 and

2.1207 of the Commission’s Regulations,

a single member of the Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel is hereby

designated to rule on petitions for leave

to intervene and/or requests for hearing

and, if necessary, to serve as the

Presiding Officer to conduct an informal

adjudicatory hearing in the following

proceeding.

University of Cincinnati (Denial of

License Amendment)

The hearing, if granted, will be

conducted pursuant to 10 C.F.R.

Subpart L of the Commission’s

Regulations, ‘‘Informal Hearing

Procedures for Adjudications in

Materials and Operator Licensing

Proceedings.’’ This proceeding concerns

a denial by NRC Staff of a request by the

University of Cincinnati for a license

amendment and a hearing petition

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 2.1205(b).

The Presiding Officer in this

proceeding is Administrative Judge G.

Paul Bollwerk III. Pursuant to the

provisions of 10 C.F.R. 2.722,

Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline has

been appointed to assist the Presiding

Officer in taking evidence and in

preparing a suitable record for review.

All correspondence, documents and

other materials shall be filed with Judge

Bollwerk and Judge Kline in accordance

with C.F.R. 2.701. Their addresses are:

Administrative Judge G. Paul Bollwerk

III, Presiding Officer, Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555

Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline,

Special Assistant, Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

D.C. 20555

Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th

day of January 1997.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,

Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety

and Licensing Board Panel.

[FR Doc. 97–2690 Filed 2–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–266 and 50–301]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company;

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments 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 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 low

temperature overpressure protection

(LTOP) system. Specifically, the reactor

coolant system (RCS) temperature below

which LTOP is required to be enabled

and the temperature below which one

high pressure safety injection pump is

required to be rendered inoperable

would be changed from less than 275

degrees Fahrenheit to less than 355

degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, the

restriction of ‘‘less than the minimum

pressurization temperature for the

inservice pressure test as defined in

Figure 15.3.1–1’’ would be deleted and

the specific temperature limit of less

than 355 degrees Fahrenheit would be

specified. The setpoint for the

pressurizer power-operated relief valves

(PORVs) would be changed from less

than or equal to 425 pounds per square

inch gage (psig) to less than or equal to

440 psig to allow for instrument
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 1997 / Notices 5257

inaccuracies and increased margin

allowed by the use of American Society

of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code Case N–514.

These modified requirements for LTOP

ensure that RCS materials meet the

requirements of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, Section 50.60,

‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Fracture

Prevention Measures for Lightwater

Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal

Operation’’ (10 CFR 50.60) in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendices G and H, and in accordance

with the exemption granted on January

27, 1997, which allows the use of ASME

Code Case N–514 as an acceptable

alternative. Finally, editorial changes

would be made to rename the

‘‘Overpressure Mitigating System’’ to

the ‘‘Low Temperature Overpressure

Protection System.’’ The proposed

amendment requests revise a previous

submittal dated September 19, 1996, as

supplemented November 18, 1996. The

September 19, 1996, application was

noticed in the Federal Register on

October 1, 1996 (61 FR 51308).

On January 27, 1997, the NRC granted

an exemption request submitted by the

licensee on July 1, 1996. The licensee

submitted the revised amendment

requests, based on receiving the

exemption, to eliminate the restriction

on reactor coolant pump operation and

to revise PORV setpoints. The licensee’s

January 13, 1997, submittal, as

supplemented on January 27, 1997,

stated that the conclusions provided in

the September 19, 1996, ‘‘No Significant

Hazards Consideration’’ were not

altered by the additional information

provided in its January 13, 1997,

submittal, as supplemented on January

27, 1997.

The January 27, 1997, submittal

requested the proposed amendments be

handled on an exigent basis based on

the current schedule which indicates

that reactor vessel head tensioning will

begin on February 10, 1997. An operable

LTOP system is required after the head

is tensioned to ensure safe operation

unless adequate venting capability is

provided.

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

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. 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.

(1) The proposed changes do not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes will explicitly

define the temperature at which LTOP

is required to be enabled, raise the

temperature at which one high pressure

safety injection pump is required to be

rendered inoperable, and increase the

setpoint of the PORVs. The changes do

not affect any accident analyses since

the LTOP is required only when RCS

temperatures are low. LTOP is not

required during power operation. The

consequences or probability of a

previously evaluated accident will,

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.

The proposed changes will still meet

the requirements for fracture toughness

requirements required by 10 CFR 50.60

as modified by the use of ASME Code

Case N–514 which was approved as an

alternative to describe requirements in

10 CFR Part 50, Appendices G and H.

Therefore, a new or different kind of

accident is not created.

(3) The proposed changes do not

result in a significant reduction in the

margin of safety.

The proposed changes increase the

range of the temperature region where

the LTOP system is needed, while

increasing the allowed setpoint pressure

by only 3.5 percent. 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 requests involve no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 15 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 the 15-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

15-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 Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By March 6, 1997, 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 2.714

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
5258 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 23 / Tuesday, February 4, 1997 / Notices

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

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 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 opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendments are issued before

the expiration of the 30-day hearing

period, the Commission will make a

final determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment requests involve no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendments

and make them immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendments.

If the final determination is that the

amendment requests involve a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendments.

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:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to John N.

Hannon: 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 of the petition

should also be sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, and to Gerald Charnoff,

Esq., 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 applications for

amendment dated September 19, 1996,

as supplemented November 18, 1996,

and revised January 13, 1997, and

supplemented on January 27, 1997,

which is available for public inspection

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.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Linda L. Gundrum,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2685 Filed 2–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear

Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of February 3, 10, 17, and

24, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

Matters To Be Considered:

Week of February 3

Tuesday, February 4

9:30 a.m. Briefing by Maine Yankee, NRR

and Region I (Public Meeting) (Contact:

Daniel Dorman, 301–415–1429)

Wednesday, February 5

NOON Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)

Week of February 10—Tentative

Thursday, February 13

2:00 p.m. Briefing on Operating Reactor

Oversight Program and Status of

Improvements in NRC Inspection

Program (Public Meeting) (Contact: Bill

Borchardt, 301–415–1257)

3:30 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed)

Week of February 17—Tentative

Tuesday, February 18

1:00 p.m. Briefing on BPR Project on

Redesigned Materials Licensing Process

(Public Meeting) (Contact: Don Cool,

301–415–7197)