[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 19 (Wednesday, January 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4338-4340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2164]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[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 
motor-driven 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

[[Page 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, Sec. 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, Sec. 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,

[[Page 4340]]

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