[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5857-5860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3055]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306]


Northern States Power Company; Notice of 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.

[[Page 5858]]

    The proposed amendments would change the Bases for the technical 
specifications and the licensing basis for the operating licenses 
relating to the cooling water system emergency intake line flow 
capacity. The licensee determined through testing that the emergency 
intake line flow capacity was less than the design value stated in the 
Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The proposed changes 
reflect the use of operator actions to control cooling water system 
flow following a seismic event. The proposed changes also reclassify 
the intake canal for use during a seismic event, which would be an 
additional source of cooling water during a seismic event.
    In its letter dated January 29, 1997, the licensee requested that 
this amendment be reviewed under exigent circumstances. Prairie Island 
Unit 2 shut down for refueling on January 25, 1997, and is scheduled to 
restart on March 5, 1997. Without review and approval of this license 
amendment request by the end of the Unit 2 outage, Prairie Island would 
be prevented from resumption of plant operation.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, 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 
request involves 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 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. 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 will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Probability

    The accident of concern for this issue is a seismic event. None 
of the proposed changes can have any effect on the probability of a 
seismic event.

Consequences

    (1) The intake canal has been evaluated for stability during a 
postulated seismic event. The results of the evaluation demonstrates 
that the banks of the canal will not liquefy or lose strength during 
the event. Therefore, taking credit for the intake canal stability 
does not increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    (2) The use of operator action for systems important to safety 
to perform properly has been evaluated. There are adequate 
indications to allow the operator to recognize the occurrence of the 
event. A procedure provides guidance to the operator for reducing 
cooling water system demand. This procedure is available in the 
control room and all actions are accomplished in the control room. 
Adequate time is available for the operator to perform the tasks and 
to get feedback on the actions' success or failure. The operators 
have been trained on the use of the procedure and continuing 
training is planned. Therefore, the use of operator action does not 
significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    (3) The potential for operator acts of omission or commission 
while reducing cooling water system demand has been evaluated.
    An operator act of omission while initially performing the 
procedure to reduce cooling water flow could result in cooling water 
system demand exceeding the emergency intake line capacity. However, 
due to the long time period within which the procedure must be 
implemented, control room management oversight and control room 
indications and alarms, it is unlikely that this condition would not 
be corrected.
    Three types of operator acts of commission while performing the 
procedure to reduce cooling water flow were considered. (1) Acts 
which could increase flow and damage the cooling water pumps are not 
credible since the cooling water system flow is assumed to be near 
its maximum due to loss of the instrument air and non-safeguards 
power when the earthquake occurs. (2) Acts which would reduce flow 
to systems required for safe shutdown of the plant were evaluated. 
These acts would be indicated by control room alarms and corrected 
or out-plant actions would be required which involves more than a 
simple act of commission, thus, loss of function of supported 
systems due to loss of cooling water flow is not considered 
credible. (3) Acts which isolate a cooling water pump incorrectly 
were considered. This is a long term wear issue, but not a pump 
failure issue.
    Operator acts of omission or commission have also been evaluated 
probabilistically. This evaluation demonstrated that the probability 
of an act of omission or commission is comparable to or less than 
other operator evolutions which have previously been licensed for 
effective performance of systems important to safety. This 
compliments the conclusions from the deterministic evaluation that 
these changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of a previously evaluated accident.
    Therefore, the potential of an operator act of omission or 
commission does not significantly increase the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment 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.
    The consideration of operator acts of omission or commission is 
limited to those acts arising from performance of the cooling water 
load management procedure. The evaluation of these actions showed 
that a new or different type of accident is not created.
    In total, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated would not be created by these 
changes to the plant licensing basis or amendments to the Cooling 
Water Technical Specifications.
    3. The proposed amendment 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. Plant margin of safety may be reduced by 
the reduced flow capacity of the emergency intake line. However, 
plant margin is restored by the remedial operator actions which 
preserve safe plant operation. Analysis shows that the intake canal 
will not fail during a seismic event and thus sufficient time for 
reducing cooling water system demand is provided. The procedure for 
reducing cooling water demand has been demonstrated on the plant 
simulator and operators have been trained. This procedure can be 
performed entirely from the control room. Thus, the changes proposed 
in this license amendment request do not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety. Additionally, probabilistic 
evaluation complements the conclusion that the likelihood for 
successful reduction of the cooling water system flow is very high.

    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 request involves 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 amendment 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

[[Page 5859]]

shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license 
amendment before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided 
that its final determination is that the amendment involves 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 10, 1997, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment 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 Minneapolis Public Library, Technology and 
Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 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 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 
amendment 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 amendment is 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 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 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 John N. Hannon, Director, Project 
Directorate III-1: 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

[[Page 5860]]

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 amendment dated January 29, 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 Minneapolis Public Library, 
Technology and Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota 55401.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 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. 97-3055 Filed 2-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P