[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10535-10537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3608]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-263]


Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment 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 an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-22, issued to Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC, or the 
licensee), for operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 
located in Wright County, Minnesota.
    The proposed amendment would remove the inservice inspection (ISI) 
requirements of Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (the Code) from the 
Monticello Technical Specifications (TSs) and relocate them to a 
licensee-controlled program.
    NMC is requesting that this license amendment request be processed 
in an exigent manner in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) because the 
plant is currently operating under a Notice of Enforcement Discretion 
(NOED) with respect to TS 3.15.A.1. In accordance with NRC procedures 
described in NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900, Operations--Notices of 
Enforcement Discretion, dated December 12, 2000, NMC applied for this 
license amendment within 2 working days after the NRC staff issued the 
NOED on January 30, 2001. The NRC staff will process this amendment in 
an exigent manner, in order to minimize the time the plant is operated 
under the NOED.
    In its application, NMC explained why it could not have foreseen 
the need for this amendment. Compliance with the current wording of TS 
3.15.A requires full compliance with the Code as a condition for 
considering Section XI-required equipment operable. Application of TS 
3.15.A requires declaring equipment inoperable and following the 
specified limiting conditions for operation when a Code non-compliance 
is discovered. This may require an unnecessary plant shutdown when the 
equipment is fully operable in all other respects. This exigent 
situation occurred because the potential for TS 3.15.A.1 to cause 
unnecessary operational evolutions was not previously recognized. Code 
nonconformances were recently identified during the course of 
inspections conducted by NRC staff. TS 3.15.A.1 directs that affected 
components be declared inoperable without regard for actual impact on 
operability. The need for a license amendment that would allow such 
nonconformances to be evaluated for their affect on equipment 
operability, thus preventing unnecessary operational evolutions, was 
subsequently identified. As a result, the need for a license amendment 
was determined to be unavoidable and not created by a failure to make a 
timely application for a license amendment.
    The staff has determined that the licensee used its best efforts to 
make a timely application for the proposed changes and that exigent 
circumstances do exist and were not the result of any intentional delay 
on the part of the licensee.
    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

[[Page 10536]]

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.
    The requested changes are administrative in nature in that they 
relocate ISI requirements from the TS to the Monticello ISI program. 
The requested changes will not revise previous commitments to 10 CFR 
50.55a or ASME Code Section XI ISI requirements.
    The proposed changes do not involve a change to the 
configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is 
used to mitigate the consequences of an accident, nor do they affect 
any assumptions or conditions in any of the accident analyses. Since 
the accident analyses remain bounding, their radiological 
consequences are not adversely affected.
    Therefore, the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated are not affected.
    2. The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    The requested changes are administrative in nature in that they 
relocate ISI requirements from the TS to the Monticello ISI program. 
The requested changes will not revise previous commitments to 10 CFR 
50.55a or ASME Code Section XI ISI requirements.
    The proposed changes do not involve a change to the 
configuration or method of operation of any plant equipment that is 
used to mitigate the consequences of an accident, nor do they affect 
any assumptions or conditions in any of the accident analyses. 
Accordingly, no new failure modes have been defined for any plant 
system or component important to safety nor has any new limiting 
single failure been identified as a result of the proposed changes.
    Therefore the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
    3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    The requested changes are administrative in nature in that they 
relocate ISI requirements from the TS to the Monticello ISI program. 
The requested changes will not revise previous commitments to 10 CFR 
50.55a or ASME Code Section XI ISI requirements. Program 
requirements will ensure that Code requirements are met.
    Therefore, a significant reduction in the margin of safety is 
not involved.

    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 14 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 14-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 14-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 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By March 19, 2001, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 
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

[[Page 10537]]

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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by 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., at 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 February 1, 2001, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located 
at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS 
Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of February 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl F. Lyon,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-3608 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P