[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application that superseded in its entirety the licensee's previous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
