[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43688-43690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-16339]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-298]


Cooper Nuclear Station; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, 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-46, issued to Nebraska Public Power District (the licensee), for 
operation of the Cooper Nuclear Station (CNS) located in Nemaha County, 
Nebraska.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) to support increase in reactor equipment cooling water 
temperature limits of service water (SW) and ultimate heat sink (UHS).
    On May 20, 2002, the licensee submitted its application for change, 
and requested that the application be reviewed and approved by July 10, 
2002. During telephone conversations with the licensee, the NRC staff 
explained that Federal Register notice requirements of 30 day comment 
period would push the earliest approval date to July 25, 2002. The 
licensee stated that anticipated low Missouri River (UHS for CNS) water 
flows and warm summer temperatures are likely to lead to the river 
water temperature to exceed the current UHS temperature limit of the 
TS, which would require a plant shutdown. Therefore, by a letter dated 
June 19, 2002, the licensee has asked that its application of May 20, 
2002, be processed as an exigent request, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.91(a)(6), so as to avoid unnecessary shutdown of the CNS.
    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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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. Do the proposed changes involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    No. The effects of the proposed increase in the SW and reactor 
equipment cooling [REC] temperatures on the likelihood of postulated 
accidents have been considered. These temperature parameters are not 
precursors or initiators of any analyzed Design Basis Events [DBEs]. 
Furthermore, there are no plant hardware changes or new operator 
actions associated with this proposed change that could serve to 
initiate a DBE. Accordingly, there is no increase in the probability 
of an accident previously evaluated.
    The potential impact of the proposed increase in the SW and REC 
temperatures on the ability of the plant to mitigate postulated 
accidents has been analyzed. This includes analysis of the following 
fourteen (14) areas: (1) The ability of the containment to provide 
adequate long term (greater than 10 minutes) cooling following a 
design basis loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA); (2) the ability to 
safely shutdown the plant from outside the control room after a 
fire; (3) the ability of the plant to mitigate an Anticipated 
Transient Without Scram (ATWS) event; (4) the adequacy of the water 
source at the suction of the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) 
pumps [i.e. the availability of adequate Net Positive Suction Head 
(NPSH)]; (5) the ability of the suppression pool to provide a source 
of water for the ECCS pumps without allowing ingestion of steam 
bubbles by the pumps; (6) small steam line break; (7) Diesel 
Generator cooling; (8) ability of SW to remove heat from REC and 
ability of REC to provide ECCS area cooling; (9) SW as a source of 
backup water to REC; (10) ability to meet requirements of 
environmental qualification of electrical equipment; (11) the 
adequacy of the water source (i.e. availability of adequate NPSH) at 
the suction of the SW and REC pumps; (12) impact on ECCS piping; 
(13) impact on the seals in the Residual Heat Removal and Core Spray 
pumps; and (14) common mode failure analysis on SW pump room maximum 
allowed temperature.
    These analyses demonstrate that adequate cooling can be achieved 
and postulated accidents can be properly mitigated with the SW and 
REC systems at the proposed increased temperatures. In some analyzed 
accidents the proposed increased SW and

[[Page 43689]]

REC temperature limits result in a minimal increase in the 
temperature of the suppression pool. However, the resulting 
temperature is less than the containment design temperature 
specified in the updated safety analysis report [USAR].
    The calculated dose consequences reflected in the USAR do not 
utilize SW or REC temperature as inputs. Therefore, these dose 
consequences are not impacted by the increased SW and REC 
temperature limits.
    Based on the above, Nebraska Public Power District [NPPD] 
concludes that the proposed increased temperature limits do not 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
an accident or transient previously evaluated in the safety analysis 
report.
    2. Do the proposed changes create the possibility for a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    No. The increased limits do not introduce any new mode of plant 
operation and will not result in a change to the design function of 
the operation of any structure, system, or component (SSC) that is 
used for mitigating accidents. The proposed increases in the 
temperature limits do not result in any credible new failure 
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not considered in 
the design and licensing bases. An increase in the maximum allowable 
cooling water temperature does not introduce new failure mechanisms 
for any SSC evaluated in the safety analysis report.
    Based on the above, NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do 
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident to 
transient from any previously evaluated.
    3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in 
the margin of safety?
    No. The UHS/SW System and the REC System temperatures are input 
assumptions for analyzing mitigation of the design basis accidents, 
and are utilized to verify adequate cooling capability without 
quantifying system design capability limits.The ability of the SW 
and the REC systems to provide adequate cooling and proper 
mitigation of accident consequences at the proposed increased 
temperature have been evaluated. These evaluations have demonstrated 
that the proposed increased cooling water temperatures do not have a 
significant impact on the capability of the affected systems to 
perform their safety-related post-accident cooling functions and to 
mitigate accident consequences.
    The safety margins related to containment pressure and 
temperature later than 10 minutes following a LOCA were shown to 
experience reductions with the increased SW and REC temperatures. 
However, both of these parameters continue to have sufficient 
resulting margin to the design pressure and temperature.
    The operating license specifies safety limits involving reactor 
power level with pressure and flow below specified values, critical 
power ratio, water level in the reactor pressure vessel, and reactor 
coolant system (RCS) pressure. The SW and REC systems have safety 
functions that are related to cooling of various essential (safety 
related) components for accident mitigation. The proposed increases 
in the license limits for UHS and REC temperature will not have any 
impact on reactor power, critical power ratio, reactor vessel water 
level, or RCS pressure.
    Based on the above NPPD concludes that the proposed changes do 
not involve a significant reduction in the margin of 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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By July 29, 2002, 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,\1\ which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, and available electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 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 of the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most recent version of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the 
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), 
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions.Those provisions 
are extant and still applicable to petitions to intervene. Those 
provisions are as follows:``In all other circumstances, such ruling 
body or officer shall, in ruling on--
    (1) A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing, 
consider the following factors, among other things:
    (i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding.
    (ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
    (iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in 
the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    (2) The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a 
contention if:
    (i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in 
the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in

[[Page 43690]]

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 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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 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, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of 
continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government 
offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and 
requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission 
either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail 
to [email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail 
to United States Government offices, it is requested that copies be 
transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 
or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the request for 
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to John 
R. McPhail, General Counsel, Nebraska Public Power District, P.O. Box 
499, Columbus, NE 68602-0499, 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 May 20, 2002, and supplemental letter 
dated June 19, 2002, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to 
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the document located in 
ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of June 2002.
Mohan C. Thadani,
Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-16339 Filed 6-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M