4338 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices

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 transfer

approval or 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 a hearing is requested with respect

to the proposed amendments, 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 such 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:

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 Gail H.

Marcus, Director, Project Directorate III–

3: 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 Leah Manning Stetzner,

Vice President, General Counsel and

Corporate Secretary, 500 South 27th

Street, Decatur, Illinois 62525, 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 dated

October 17, 1996, as modified and

supplemented by letter dated December

13, 1996, regarding the transfer of

license and amendment, which are

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

Vespasian Warner Public Library, 310

N. Quincy Street, Clinton, IL 61727. The

submittal dated October 17, 1996,

originally identified the proposed

transferee as Illinova Power Marketing,

Inc., an unregulated power marketing

subsidiary of Illinova Corporation, the

parent of IP. The submittal dated

December 13, 1996, modified the

original application such that the

proposed transferee is now IP. This

notice supersedes that published in the

Federal Register on November 6, 1996

(61 FR 57486).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2161 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–282 and 50–306]

Northern States Power Co.;

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–42

and DPR–60 issued to Northern States

Power Company (the licensee) for

operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear

Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, located

in Goodhue County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendments would

revise the Technical Specifications

governing the cooling water system. The

changes are proposed to improve plant

operation based on operational

experience with the vertical motordriven cooling water pump. The

changes are also proposed to

incorporate information gathered by the

licensee during its self-assessment

Service Water System Operational

Performance Inspection (SWSOPI)

completed in late 1995.

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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices 4339

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. The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Probability

The Cooling Water System is provided in

the plant to mitigate accidents and it is not

a Design Basis Accident initiator, thus these

proposed changes do not increase the

probability of an accident.

Consequences

Entry into LCO [Limiting Condition for

Operation] 3.3.D.2.a

This License Amendment proposes to

allow the plant to remain in Specification

3.3.D.2.a when 121 Cooling Water Pump is

available for operation. Consequences of an

accident would only be impacted if there was

no cooling water supply to cool plant

equipment. Remaining in Specification

3.3.D.2.a does not involve an increase in the

consequences of an accident because, even

though the plant operators may not align 121

Cooling Water Pump in accordance with

Specification 3.3.D.1.a under this proposed

amendment, the pump is still available to

automatically start, it is powered by a

safeguards Bus (normally Bus 25) and if there

is an SI [safety injection] signal it will

automatically align to Train A if the SI signal

is generated Unit 1 or Train B if the SI signal

is generated by Unit 2. Since one active

component has already been declared

inoperable (the diesel driven Cooling Water

Pump which has been removed from service)

the remaining diesel driven Cooling Water

Pump and 121 Cooling Water Pump will

provide Cooling Water sufficient to meet the

design basis of [the] plant. The primary safety

benefit of upgrading 121 Cooling Water

Pump was providing it with a safeguards

power source. This proposed amendment

does not change this safety enhancement.

Thus this change does not involve an

increase in the consequences of an accident.

Isolation Valve Actuation Circuit Testing

Changing the actuation circuitry testing

frequency from quarterly to each refueling

outage does not significantly increase the

consequences of an accident. Plant and

industry experience has shown that testing SI

circuitry each refueling outage provides

adequate assurance that the SI actuation

circuitry will function as designed. Thus

testing the Cooling Water isolation actuation

circuitry each refueling outage also provides

assurance that these circuits will perform as

designed.

Design Features Amendment

Conformance of Sections 5.1 and 5.4 to the

Improved Standard Technical Specifications

is administrative in nature. The current

Technical Specifications descriptions will be

maintained under site administrative

controls (Updated Safety Analysis Report),

thus the consequences of an accident are not

affected.

Conclusion

In total, these changes do not involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment[s] will not

create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously analyzed.

The Cooling Water System is provided in

the plant to mitigate accidents and it is not

a Design Basis Accident initiator, thus these

proposed changes do not increase the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident.

In total, the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident previously evaluated would

not be created by these amendments to the

Cooling Water Technical Specifications.

3. The proposed amendment[s] will not

involve a significant reduction in the margin

of safety.

The proposed changes do not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety

because the current Technical Specifications

requirements for safe operation of the Prairie

Island plant are maintained or increased.

Entry Into LCO 3.3.D.2.a

This License Amendment proposes

flexibility to remain in Specification 3.3.D.2.a

when 121 Cooling Water Pump is available

for operation. This change does not involve

a significant reduction in the margin of safety

because 121 Cooling Water Pump is still

available to perform safety functions when

Specification 3.3.D.2.a is entered under the

provisions of this amendment which means

the pump is still available to automatically

start, it is powered by a safeguards Bus

(normally Bus 25), and if there is an SI signal

it will automatically align to Train A if the

SI signal is generated by Unit 1 or Train B

if the SI signal is generated by Unit 2. Since

one active component has already been

declared inoperable (the diesel driven

Cooling Water Pump which has been

removed from service) the remaining diesel

driven Cooling Water Pump and 121 Cooling

Water Pump will provide cooling water

sufficient to meet the plant design basis. The

primary safety benefit of upgrading 121

Cooling Water Pump was providing it with

a safeguards power source. This proposed

amendment does not change this safety

enhancement. Thus this change does not

involve a significant reduction in the plant

margin of safety.

Isolation Valve Actuation Circuit Testing

Changing the actuation circuitry testing

frequency from quarterly to each refueling

outage does not significantly reduce the

margin of plant safety. Plant and industry

experience has shown that testing SI circuitry

each refueling outage provides adequate

assurance that the SI actuation circuitry will

function as designed. Thus testing the

Cooling Water isolation actuation circuitry

each refueling outage also provides assurance

that these circuits will perform as designed.

Design Features Amendment

Relocation of plant descriptions from

Technical Specifications is administrative in

nature and, therefore, does not significantly

reduce the plant margins of safety.

Conclusion

Therefore, a significant reduction in the

margin of safety would not be involved with

these Cooling Water amendments.

Based on the evaluation described above,

and pursuant to 10 CFR part 50, § 50.91,

Northern States Power Company has

determined that operating the Prairie Island

Nuclear Generating Plant in accordance with

the proposed license amendment request[s]

does not involve any significant hazards

considerations as defined by Nuclear

Regulatory Commission regulations in 10

CFR part 50, § 50.92.

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 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 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 example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission 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

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 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,
4340 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 19 / Wednesday, January 29, 1997 / Notices

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 February 28, 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

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

Minneapolis Public Library, Technology

and Science Department, 300 Nicollet

Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. 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

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made 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 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 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 Jay Silberg, 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 application for

amendments dated November 6, 1996,

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 Minneapolis Public Library,

Technology and Science Department,

300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 23rd day of

January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Beth A. Wetzel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2164 Filed 1–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards; Revised

The 438th meeting of the Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards

scheduled to be held on February 5–8,