[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40321-40323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20110]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Northern States Power Company; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

[Docket No. 50-263]
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-22 issued to Northern States Power Company (the licensee) for 
operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Wright 
County, Minnesota.
    The proposed amendment would revise Section 3.6.C, Coolant 
Chemistry, and 3/4.17.B, Control Room Emergency Filtration System, of 
the Technical Specifications (TS), Appendix A of the Operating License 
for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The changes were proposed 
to establish TS requirements consistent with modified analysis inputs 
used for the evaluation of the radiological consequences of the main 
steam line break accident. This amendment request was originally 
noticed in the Federal Register on May 6, 1998 (63 FR 25115). On June 
19, 1998, supplemented July 1, 1998, the licensee submitted an 
application that superseded in its entirety the licensee's previous 
submittal dated April 11, 1997.
    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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination 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.
    A limit is established in the plant Technical Specifications for 
steady state radioiodine concentration in the reactor coolant to 
ensure that in the event of a release of radioactive material to the 
environment due to a postulated high energy line break up to and 
including a design basis Main Steam Line Break Accident, radiation 
doses are maintained well within the regulatory guidelines. The 
steady state radioiodine concentration in the reactor coolant is an 
input for analysis of the radiological consequences of an accident 
due to a Main Steam Line Break outside of containment and postulated 
high energy line breaks. In addition, requirements are established 
in the Technical Specifications for control room habitability. 
During an accident, the control room emergency filtration system 
provides filtered air to pressurize the Control Room to minimize the 
activity, and therefore the radiological dose, inside the control 
room.
    A change is proposed for the steady state radioiodine 
concentration. This value is conservative with respect to the value 
used in the Main Steam Line Break dose consequences analysis and is 
consistent with the dose consequences evaluation of a postulated 
Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) line break. Changes are proposed to the 
limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for 
the Control Room Emergency Filtration Train iodine removal 
efficiency. These changes are consistent with the inputs used in the 
analysis of the radiological consequences of the postulated RWCU 
line break and the Main Steam Line Break Accident. Changes to 
testing requirements are more restrictive and in accordance with the 
applicable regulatory guidance. These proposed requirements maintain 
operating restrictions for analytical inputs used in the analysis of 
the Main Steam Line Break Accident. Evaluation of these events has 
demonstrated that the postulated radiological consequences will also 
remain within the licensing basis established in the AEC [Atomic 
Energy Commission] Provisional Operating License Safety Evaluation 
Report, dated March 18, 1970, thus the proposed changes do not 
result in an increase in the consequences of previously evaluated 
accidents.
    The analysis of the Main Steam Line Break Accident performed 
using a reactor coolant radioiodine concentration of 2 [micro]Ci/gm 
dose equivalent Iodine-131 and a control room ventilation filter 
efficiency consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications 
changes demonstrated that radiological consequences of the Main 
Steam Line Break are not changed significantly. The radiological 
consequences of the Main Steam Line Break Accident remain within the 
exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, General 
Design Criterion 19. The offsite dose consequences remain bounded by 
the original licensing basis provided in the AEC Provisional 
Operating License Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 18, 1970. 
The control room doses calculated for the hot standby Main Steam 
Line Break Accident using the TID-14844 dose conversion factors 
remain bounded by the dose consequences of the comparable design 
basis loss of coolant accident.
    The evaluation of the postulated RWCU line break, performed 
using a reactor coolant radioiodine concentration of 0.25 [micro]Ci/
gm dose equivalent Iodine-131 and a control room ventilation filter 
efficiency consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications 
changes, demonstrated that the radiological consequences of this 
event remain within the exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR 
50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19. The offsite dose 
consequences remain bounded by the Main Steam Line Break as 
established in the licensing basis provided in the AEC Provisional 
Operating License Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 18, 1970.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes do not introduce 
new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter 
existing system relationships. The proposed changes do not introduce 
new failure modes. The system improvements to reduce bypass leakage 
during postulated accidents do not have an adverse effect on control 
room habitability. Therefore, this amendment will not cause a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated for the Monticello plant.
    2. The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes do not introduce 
new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter 
existing system relationships. Operator action to mitigate the 
consequences of the postulated RWCU line break is conservative based 
on the simple action required by the operator to close the 
containment isolation valves within 10 minutes. Isolation at 10 
minutes is very conservative since a safety related RWCU containment 
isolation system that was installed during the 1998 refueling outage 
would effect an automatic isolation within one minute of the RWCU 
break.
    The proposed change to the specification for reactor coolant 
dose equivalent radioiodine is conservative with respect to the re-
evaluation of the Main Steam Line Break Accident for the more 
conservative hot standby initial condition for the postulated 
accident. The proposed change to the specification for reactor 
coolant dose equivalent radioiodine is consistent with the 
postulated high energy line break of a Reactor

[[Page 40322]]

Water Cleanup line. The proposed changes to the limiting conditions 
for operation and surveillance requirements for the control room 
emergency filtration train iodine removal efficiency are consistent 
with the inputs used in the evaluation of the radiological 
consequences of the postulated RWCU line break and the Main Steam 
Line Break Accident. The system improvements to reduce bypass 
leakage during postulated accidents do not have an adverse effect on 
control room habitability. Therefore, the proposed amendment will 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    Surveillance data has demonstrated the proposed requirements are 
within the current capability of the facility. The proposed changes 
maintain margins of safety. These proposed requirements maintain 
operating restrictions for analytical inputs used in the analysis of 
the bounding postulated high energy line break of a Reactor Water 
Cleanup line and the Main Steam Line Break Accident. The proposed 
change to the specification for reactor coolant dose equivalent 
radioiodine is conservative with respect to the re-evaluation of the 
Main Steam Line Break Accident for the more conservative hot standby 
initial condition for the postulated accident. The proposed change 
to the specification for reactor coolant dose equivalent radioiodine 
is consistent with the postulated high energy line break of a 
Reactor Water Cleanup line. The evaluation of these postulated 
events determined that the radiological consequences remain within 
the exposure guidelines of 10CFR100 and of 10CFR50 Appendix A, 
General Design Criterion 19 and within the original licensing basis 
contained in the Provisional Operating License. The proposed changes 
to the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance 
requirements for the control room emergency filtration train iodine 
removal efficiency provide assurance that the system will perform at 
the filter efficiency as used in the evaluation of the radiological 
consequences of the postulated events. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety.

    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 by close of business 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 amendment 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 amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-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 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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 August 27, 1998, 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 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 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.

[[Page 40323]]

    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 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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by close of business on the above date. 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 amendment dated June 19, 1998, as supplemented July 1, 
1998, and the licensee's letter dated May 5, 1997, 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 Minneapolis Public Library, 
Technology and Science Department, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, 
Minnesota 55401.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tae Kim,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-20110 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P