[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