[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43965-43967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22082]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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


Northern States Power Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-42 and DPR-
60; 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 allow a design modification to the 
existing Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) Mitigation System 
Actuation Circuitry (AMSAC). The

[[Page 43966]]

design modification would install a Diverse Scram System (DSS) designed 
to meet the requirements of a DSS described by 10 Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) 50.62 (ATWS Rule) for non-Westinghouse designed 
plants and make major modifications to the existing AMSAC.
    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 amendments 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. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment[s] 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident previously evaluated?
    The proposed changes affect two systems which are contributors 
to initiating events for previously evaluated anticipated 
operational occurrences. These systems are rod control and turbine 
generator. The AMSAC also affects the auxiliary feedwater system. 
The interaction of the AMSAC/DSS with these systems will not 
significantly increase the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The addition of another means of initiating a signal to cause 
rods to drop into the core introduces an increased probability for 
an RCCA [rod cluster control assembly] Misalignment event (USAR 
[Updated Safety Analysis Report section] 14.4.3). Because the AMSAC/
DSS circuitry has been designed to minimize spurious actuations, 
this increased probability is not significant. In addition, because 
the AMSAC/DSS circuitry is designed to provide a signal to each rod 
control power cabinet resulting in the cancellation of gripper coil 
current for all rods powered from that cabinet, the probability of 
dropping a single rod of sufficiently small worth not to trigger the 
negative rate reactor trip is not significant. Previous analysis has 
indicated that more than one rod dropping into the core at the same 
time will trigger the negative rate reactor trip.
    The addition of another means of initiating a signal to cause a 
turbine trip introduces an increased probability for an event nearly 
identical to a Loss of External Electrical Load event (USAR 14.4.9). 
Because the AMSAC/DSS circuitry has been designed to minimize 
spurious actuations, this increased probability is not significant.
    The addition of another means of initiating a signal to start 
auxiliary feedwater flow to the steam generators introduces an 
increased probability for an event similar to an Excessive Heat 
Removal Due to Feedwater System Malfunction event (USAR 14.4.6) 
though greatly reduced in magnitude. Because the flow capacity of 
the auxiliary feedwater system is much less than the flow capacity 
of the main feedwater system, the consequences of any spurious 
actuation of the auxiliary feedwater system are bounded by the 
Feedwater System Malfunction event. In addition, because the AMSAC/
DSS circuitry has been designed to minimize spurious actuations the 
increased probability of this ``event of negligible consequence'' is 
not significant.
    2. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment[s] 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any accident previously evaluated?
    The AMSAC/DSS is an instrumentation system that is separated and 
isolated from the reactor protection system. The AMSAC/DSS may 
initiate a spurious signal which results in tripping the turbine 
generator, dropping some or all control rods into the core, starting 
auxiliary feedwater flow to the steam generators, or any combination 
of these events. Individually and in combination these events are 
well understood and have been previously analyzed. Review of this 
modification does not indicate that it will create the possibility 
for a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment[s] 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    Deterministic analyses have demonstrated that the proposed 
AMSAC/DSS will preserve all safety margins inherent in the fuel 
cladding and the RCS [reactor coolant system] boundary during 
postulated ATWS events.

    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 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 September 16, 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

[[Page 43967]]

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 February 27, 1998, as supplemented July 
14, 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, Maryland, this 11th day of August 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. 98-22082 Filed 8-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P