[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34086-34088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16648]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Docket No. 50-263
Northern States Power Company; 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 Northern States Power Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, located in Wright
County, Minnesota.
The proposed amendment would evaluate the unreviewed safety
questions associated with the increase in calculated peak suppression
pool temperature and the reliance on containment pressure to compensate
for the deficiency in net positive suction head for the emergency core
cooling system pumps following a design basis accident.
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
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 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:
These changes do not affect the physical configuration of the plant
or how it is operated. These changes:
(1) Document the acceptability of the limiting mode of long-term
post-LOCA [loss of coolant accident] containment heat removal that has
been analyzed and found to be acceptable.
(2) Document the acceptability of the use of a limited amount of
post-LOCA containment overpressure to assure adequate NPSH [net
positive suction head] for ECCS [emergency core cooling system] pump
operation.
The changes clarify the Technical Specification Bases to correctly
describe the design and licensing basis for containment spray/cooling
equipment and ECCS pump NPSH following a loss of coolant accident.
The original Monticello FSAR [final safety analysis report]
identified the most degraded condition for containment spray/cooling
equipment availability. This condition could occur following a
postulated loss of offsite power and loss of one diesel generator. One
RHR [residual heat removal] pump and one RHRSW [residual heat removal
service water] pump would be available under these conditions. An
update of the containment pressure and temperature analysis following
completion of the Mark I Containment Long-term Program in the early
1980's
[[Page 34087]]
inadvertently assumed the availability of two RHR pumps and two RHRSW
pumps. The Bases of the Monticello Technical Specifications also
appears to have been written based on the availability of two RHR pumps
and two RHRSW pumps for containment spray/cooling. This error in the
containment pressure and temperature analysis was identified during the
Monticello design basis reconstitution program and was corrected by a
revised analysis.
This analysis has been revised to meet NRC Staff requirements and
is being submitted for review and approval in conjunction with the
Technical Specification changes proposed in this License Amendment
Request. The proposed changes will correct the Bases of the Monticello
Technical Specifications to clearly describe the design basis of the
plant for the post-LOCA containment spray/cooling function. One RHR
pump and one RHRSW pump are fully adequate for this function.
The use of containment pressure to provide a portion of the NPSH
required by ECCS pumps following a loss of coolant accident was not
adequately documented in the original design and licensing basis for
the Monticello plant. Detailed ECCS pump NPSH analyses have been
completed and submitted for NRC Staff review and approval. It is
proposed that the Bases of the Technical Specifications also be
corrected to document the acceptability of taking credit for a limited
amount of containment overpressure for ECCS pump NPSH.
The proposed changes do not introduce new accident scenarios. These
changes have no impact on the protection of the health and safety of
the public. There is a small reduction in margin, as discussed in (3)
below, resulting from new analyses of loss of coolant accident
containment temperature and pressure response and ECCS pump NPSH
requirements.
(2) The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
These changes are administrative in nature and do not affect the
physical configuration of the plant or how it is operated.
The changes will revise the Technical Specification Bases to
correctly describe the design basis of the Monticello plant for
performing the post-LOCA containment spray/cooling function and for
satisfying ECCS pump NPSH requirements. They are based on new analyses
submitted to the NRC Staff for their review and approval.
(3) The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
The minimum number of RHR and RHRSW pumps assumed to be operable
for long-term containment heat removal analysis has been reduced from
the number assumed to be operable in earlier licensing documentation
provided to the NRC for review.
In addition, analyses of ECCS pump NPSH requirements take credit
for containment pressure under some conditions. The original Monticello
licensing basis documentation reviewed by the NRC Staff did not clearly
state that containment pressure was necessary to assure adequate ECCS
pump NPSH.
The reduction in the number of RHR and RHRSW pump used for
containment cooling results in an increase in suppression pool
temperature. This temperature increase, and the limited dependence on
containment pressure to ensure adequate ECCS pump NPSH, are considered
to be reductions in margin.
The new containment long-term heat removal and ECCS pump NPSH
analyses provided with this License Amendment Request use input
assumptions which conservatively model the phenomena involved. An
updated computer code and decay heat model are used in a conservative
manner at an assumed power level of 112.5% (1880 Mwt [megawatts
thermal]) of license reactor power in the new analyses. Appropriate
baseline and benchmark analyses have been performed. An increase in
long-term peak suppression pool temperature from 182 deg.F to 194.2
deg.F is predicted for the limiting configuration of one RHR and one
RHRSW pump. A reanalysis of torus attached piping, RHR room
temperature, and environment qualification considerations for operation
with the higher suppression pool temperature was completed with
satisfactory results. It is concluded that one RHR pump and one RHRSW
pump provide adequate margins for long-term containment cooling.
Analyses were performed to evaluate the NPSH adequacy for
Monticello ECCS pumps for a broad range of pump combinations and
failure modes. The minimum containment pressure available and the
containment pressure required to satisfy NPSH requirements was
calculated for each limiting combination of pumps. It was concluded
that proper operation of the ECCS pumps is assured under all conditions
following a loss of coolant accident.
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 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 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
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 July 24, 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
[[Page 34088]]
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.
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: 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. 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 January 23, 1997, as supplemented
January 28, March 4, and June 19, 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 20th day of June 1997.
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. 97-16648 Filed 6-20-97; 12:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
