[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66670-66671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30910]



[[Page 66670]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


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

[Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306]
    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 change Technical Specification 
Section 3.1.A.1.b to allow continued operation in Mode 3 with no 
reactor coolant pumps in operation for a period not to exceed 72 hours, 
provided that specified actions have been accomplished. The proposed 
amendments would also increase the time period in which both reactor 
coolant pumps are permitted to be turned off from 1 hour to 12 hours to 
allow sufficient time to conduct either preplanned maintenance or 
electrical lineup switching that would require both reactor coolant 
pumps to be turned off while in Mode 3.
    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 change does not significantly affect any system 
that is a contributor to initiating events for previously evaluated 
accidents. The probability of occurrence for the ``Uncontrolled RCCA 
[reactor control cluster assembly] Withdrawal From a Subcritical 
Condition'' abnormal operational transient will be decreased by the 
actions required by the proposed change, and the consequences will 
remain unchanged. The probability of occurrence and consequences for 
the ``Chemical and Volume Control System Malfunction'' (Uncontrolled 
Boron Dilution) abnormal operational transient will not be changed 
by the actions required by the proposed change. Neither does the 
change significantly affect any system that is used to mitigate any 
previously evaluated accidents. The proposed change extends the time 
that the plant can remain in Mode 3 on natural circulation. This 
will not degrade the ability of the plant to later reduce reactor 
coolant system temperature and pressure to Mode 4 conditions where 
the diesel generators and RHR [residual heat removal] system are 
still available to remove decay heat. The proposed changes do not 
involve any significant increase in the probability or consequence 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    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 proposed change does not alter the design, function, or 
manner of operation of any plant component and does not install any 
new or different equipment. The proposed change extends the time 
that the plant can remain in Mode 3 on natural circulation. A 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from those 
previously analyzed has not been created.
    3. Does operation of the facility with the proposed amendment[s] 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    The proposed change extends the time that the plant can remain 
in Mode 3 on natural circulation. Sufficient capacity to remove 
decay heat is still available. Under natural circulation conditions 
the availability of both steam generators provides the expected 
redundancy of this required safety function associated with the 
reactor coolant system Technical Specification basis. The proposed 
change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety associated with the safety limits inherent in either the 
principle barriers to a radiation release (fuel cladding, RCS 
[reactor coolant system] boundary, and reactor containment), the 
maintenance of critical safety functions (subcriticality, core 
cooling, ultimate heat sink, RCS inventory, RCS boundary integrity, 
and containment integrity), or other structures, systems or 
components (SSCs) significant to safety.

    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, December 29, 1999, 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 accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

[[Page 66671]]

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 November 19, 1999, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23d day of November 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Claudia M. Craig,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate III, Division of Licensing 
Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-30910 Filed 11-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P