[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