[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14972-14974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8029]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306]


Northern States Power Co.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration DeterminatIon, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-
42 and DPR-60 issued to Northern States Power Company (the licensee) 
for operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 
and 2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
    The proposed amendments would (1) update the Technical 
Specification heatup and cooldown rate curves and extend their reactor 
fluence limit from the current 20 effective full power years (EFPY) to 
a new value of 35 EFPY, (2) incorporate into Technical Specifications 
the use of a Pressure and Temperature Limits Report (PTLR), and (3) 
change the power-operated relief valves (PORVs) temperature requirement 
for operability.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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[s] will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to update the Prairie Island pressure and 
temperature limits curves and the Over Pressure Protection System 
(OPPS) setpoints for reactor vessel fluence to 35 EFPY is based upon 
measurements and calculations that were performed in accordance with 
an NRC approved methodology for performing reactor vessel fracture 
analysis to meet 10CFR50 Appendix G and H requirements. These 
calculations made application of American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) Code Case N-514, ``Low Temperature Overpressure 
Protection,'' in determining the acceptable OPPS setpoint for 
Prairie Island Units 1 and 2. This permits the OPPS pressure relief 
setpoint to be established such that the maximum pressure at the 
reactor vessel material's most limiting location is limited to 110% 
of the pressure determined to satisfy ASME Section XI, Appendix G, 
Article G-2215. As detailed in the exemption request to apply this 
ASME Code Case, the development of the Appendix G pressure/
temperature limit curves incorporates numerous conservatisms. For 
this reason the ASME code committee approved this code case. 
Application of this code case with the approved methodology does not 
produce a significant increase in the probability or magnitude of 
brittle fracture of the reactor vessel.
    The proposed change to relocate the pressure and temperature 
limits curves and the Over Pressure Protection System (OPPS) 
setpoints to a Pressure and Temperature Limits Report is an 
administrative change. It does not affect any system which is a 
contributor to initiating events for previously evaluated 
anticipated operational occurrences and therefore does not involve 
any significant increase in the probability or consequence of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change in PORV operability temperature from 310 
deg.F to a new value of 350  deg.F does not affect any system which 
is a contributor to initiating events for previously evaluated 
anticipated operational occurrences and therefore does not involve 
any significant increase in the probability or consequence of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment[s] will not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
analyzed.
    The proposed change to update the Prairie Island pressure and 
temperature limits curves and the Over Pressure Protection System 
(OPPS) setpoints for a reactor fluence limit of 35 EFPY does not 
introduce a new mode of operation or testing, or make physical 
changes to the plant. (The new Technical Specification requirement 
to isolate the accumulators whenever the RCS [reactor coolant 
system] temperature is less than the OPPS enable temperature does 
not introduce a new mode of operation since Unit Shutdown procedures 
close the accumulator discharge valves and tag out their breakers 
when RCS pressure falls below 1000 psig.) The general methods 
employed to develop this change are well understood and have been 
previously reviewed and approved. Updating the operating 
restrictions, OPPS setpoints, and reactor fluence limit for 
operation do not create a possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from those previously analyzed.
    The proposed change to relocate the pressure and temperature 
limits curves and the Over Pressure Protection System (OPPS) 
setpoints to a Pressure and Temperature Limits Report is an 
administrative change. The proposed change does not alter the 
design, function, or operation of any plant component, therefore a 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those 
previously analyzed has not [been] created.
    The proposed change in the PORV operability temperature from 310 
 deg.F to a new value of 350  deg.F does not involve a physical 
alteration of the plant. Since no new or different type of equipment 
will be installed, this change does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment[s] will not involve a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety.
    Although neutron irradiation reduces the material fracture 
toughness of the reactor vessel, deterministic analyses have 
demonstrated that proposed P/T [pressure/temperature] curves, OPPS 
setpoints and reactor vessel fluence limits for operation will 
preserve the required margin of safety in the RCS boundary during 
postulated low temperature pressurization events.
    The proposed change to use the PTLR is administrative in nature 
and does not impact the operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear 
Generating Plant in a manner that would result in any significant 
reduction in any margin of safety.
    The proposed change in the PORV operability temperature from 310 
 deg.F to a new value of 350  deg.F does not impact any systems that 
are relied upon for core cooling or RCS pressure relief at RCS 
temperatures below 350  deg.F. Setting the PORV operability 
temperature back to 350  deg.F aligns the PORVs with the Pressurizer 
Safety Valve operability requirement so the PORVs are still 
available to limit challenges to the Pressurizer Safety Valve 
settings during conditions of higher RCS pressure and energy when 
pressure surges become more significant. (In Amendment[s] 91/84 this 
temperature was changed for operational flexibility from its 
previous value of 350  deg.F to a new value of 310  deg.F to be 
coincident with the OPPS Enable Temperature. This change was not 
done to establish a larger margin of safety.) For RCS temperatures 
below 350  deg.F both the pressure and core energy are sufficiently 
decreased that pressure surges become less significant. For RCS 
temperatures below 350  deg.F the RHR [residual heat removal] system 
is capable of removing the reactor decay heat and thereby 
controlling RCS pressure and temperature. In the unlikely event that 
a significant pressure surge were to occur in this temperature range 
with neither RHR nor the PORVs in service, one pressurizer safety 
valve would be operable to mitigate potential overpressure 
transients. Thus this change does not involve

[[Page 14973]]

a significant reduction in the margin of safety associated with 
either the RCS boundary or fuel cladding.
    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 April 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.
    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 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.

[[Page 14974]]

    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 March 6, 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.

    Dated at Rockville, MD, this 24th day of March 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. 98-8029 Filed 3-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P