[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
