[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4676-4678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-2325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-282]
Northern States Power Company; Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-42;
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-42 issued to Northern States Power Company (the licensee) for
operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1,
located in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
The proposed amendment would initiate a one-time only change for
Prairie Island Unit 1 Cycle 19 that would allow the use of the moveable
incore detector system for measurement of the core peaking factors with
less than 75% and greater than or equal to 50% of the detector thimbles
available.
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.
The proposed changes do not involve an increase in the
probability of an accident previously evaluated. The moveable incore
detector system is used only to provide confirmatory information on
the neutron flux distribution and is not required for the daily safe
operation of the core. The system is not a process variable that is
an initial condition in the accident analyses. The only accident
that the moveable incore detector system could be involved in is the
breaching of the detector thimbles which would be enveloped by the
small break loss of coolant accident (LOCA) analysis. As the
proposed changes do not involve any changes to the system's
equipment and no equipment is operated in a new or more harmful
manner, there is no increase in the probability of such an accident.
The proposed [amendment] would not involve an increase in the
consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The moveable
incore detector system provides a monitoring function that is not
used for accident mitigation (the system is not used in the primary
success path for mitigation of a design basis accident). The ability
of the reactor protection system or engineered safety features
system instrumentation to mitigate the consequences of an accident
will not be impaired by the proposed changes. The small break LOCA
analysis (and thus its consequences) continues to bound potential
breaching of the system's detector thimbles.
With greater than or equal to 50% and less than 75% of the
detector thimbles available, core peaking factor measurement
uncertainties will be increased, which could impact the core peaking
factors and as a result could affect the consequences of certain
accidents. However, any changes in the core peaking factors
resulting from increased measurement uncertainties will be
compensated for by conservative measurement uncertainty adjustments
in the Technical Specifications to ensure that pertinent core design
parameters are maintained. Sufficient additional penalty is added to
the power distribution measurements such that this change will not
impact the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Therefore, based on the conclusions of the above analysis, the
proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the
probability or 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 proposed [amendment] would not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident previously evaluated as [it] only
affect[s] the minimum complement of equipment necessary for
operability of the moveable incore detector system. There is no
change in plant configuration, equipment or equipment design. No
equipment is operated in a new manner. Thus the changes will not
create any new or different accident causal mechanisms. The accident
analysis in the Updated Safety Analysis Report remains bounding.
Therefore, based on the conclusions of the above analysis, the
proposed changes 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.
The proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety. The reduction in the minimum complement of
equipment necessary for the operability of the moveable incore
detector system could only impact the monitoring/calibration
functions of the system. Reduction of the number of available
moveable incore detector thimbles to the 50% level does not
significantly degrade the ability of the system to measure core
power distributions. With greater than or equal to 50% and less than
75% of the detector thimbles available, core peaking factor
measurement uncertainties will be increased, but will be compensated
for by conservative measurement uncertainty adjustments in the
Technical Specifications to ensure that pertinent core design
parameters are maintained. Sufficient additional penalty is added to
the power distribution measurements such that this change does not
impact the safety margins which currently exist. Also, the reduction
of available detector thimbles has negligible impact on the quadrant
power tilt and core average axial power shape measurements.
Sufficient detector thimbles will be available to ensure that no
quadrant will be unmonitored.
Based on these factors, the proposed changes in this license
amendment will not result in a significant reduction in the plant's
margin of safety, as the core will continue to be adequately
monitored.
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 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
[[Page 4677]]
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 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 2, 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.
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 January 15, 1998, 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.
[[Page 4678]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of January 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Beth A. Wetzel,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-2325 Filed 1-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P