[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 190 (Thursday, October 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52772-52774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26280]


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

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, 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 (NSP or the 
licensee) for operation of the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, 
Units 1 and 2, located in Goodhue County, Minnesota.
    The proposed amendments would change the design basis of the 
cooling water system emergency intake line flow capacity. The licensee 
determined through testing that the emergency intake line flow capacity 
was less than the design value stated in the Updated Safety Analysis 
Report. The proposed changes reflect the use of operator actions to 
control cooling water system flow following a seismic event. The 
proposed changes also reclassify the intake canal for use during a 
seismic event, which would be an additional source of cooling water 
during a seismic event. This notice incorporates additional information 
contained in supplemental submittals.
    The licensee submitted its request for amendments in a letter dated 
January 29, 1997, as supplemented February 11, 12, March 7, 10, 11, 19, 
20, April 29, June 30, and July 10,1997, June 20, June 22, July 24 and 
September 15, 1998. The licensee's original application was noticed in 
the Federal Register on February 7, 1997 (62 FR 5857). A public 
announcement was published in local newspapers (St. Paul Pioneer Press 
on March 15, 1997, Minneapolis Star Tribune on March 16, 1997, and Red 
Wing Republican Eagle on March 17, 1997) to reflect additional 
supplements and give public notice of an interim amendment.
    The interim amendments were issued on March 25, 1997 (Unit 1--
Amendment 128, Unit 2--Amendment 120) and authorized NSP to continue 
operation of Prairie Island Units 1 and 2 on an interim basis, through 
the incorporation of three license conditions into the licenses, until 
a seismically qualified emergency cooling water source was 
demonstrated. The licensee has completed an analysis which demonstrates 
that the intake canal is a seismically qualified emergency cooling 
water source. The

[[Page 52773]]

proposed amendments would incorporate the licensee's seismic analysis 
of the intake canal into the licensing basis.
    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. The NRC staff has 
reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below.
    1. The proposed amendments will not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The accident of concern for this issue is a seismic event. None of 
the proposed changes can have any effect on the probability of a 
seismic event.
    Operator action is required to assure continued operation of the 
cooling water system following a design-basis earthquake. Evaluations 
have shown that sufficient time is available for the operator actions 
to be completed. Procedures are in place to direct the operator actions 
and operators have been trained on the use of the procedures. Thus, use 
of operator actions within the time frame available does not involve a 
significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Failure of the intake canal slopes could result in soil being 
deposited into the canal. However, analyses show that if portions of 
the intake canal slopes fail and fall into the canal, it will not be a 
large volume of soil that gets displaced. The amount of potential soil 
to be displaced will not interfere with the function of the cooling 
water system. Thus, the cooling water system will continue to perform 
its safety function following a design-basis earthquake and will not 
result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendments will not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
    The cooling water system is provided in the plant to mitigate 
accidents and it is not a design-basis accident initiator; thus, the 
proposed reliance on operator action in the available time and 
consideration of bank failure effects do not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident.
    3. The proposed amendments will not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Plant margin of safety may be reduced by the reduced flow capacity 
of the emergency intake line. However, plant margin is restored by 
implementing operator actions to reduce cooling water loads and by 
taking credit for cooling water in the intake canal during a seismic 
event. The procedure for reducing cooling water demand has been 
demonstrated on the plant simulator and operators have been trained. 
Analyses have demonstrated that a sufficient amount of water will 
remain in the intake canal for the cooling water system to continue to 
perform its safety function following a design-basis earthquake. Thus, 
the changes proposed in this license amendment request do not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    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 November 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

[[Page 52774]]

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.
    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 amendments dated January 29, 1997, as supplemented 
February 11, 12, March 7, 10, 11, 19, 20, April 29, June 30, and July 
10, 1997, June 20, June 22, July 24, and September 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of September 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. 98-26280 Filed 9-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P