[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 22, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63023-63024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-25148]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-282-LR and 50-306-LR; ASLBP No. 08-871-01-LR]
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; Northern States Power Co.
(Formerly Nuclear Management Company, LLC.) (Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2); Notice and Order (Scheduling Oral
Argument)
October 16, 2008.
Before Administrative Judges: William J. Froehlich, Chairman; Dr. Gary
S. Arnold; Dr. Thomas J. Hirons
Oral argument will be heard on standing and contention
admissibility issues presented in the hearing request received on
August 18, 2008, from the Prairie Island Indian Community
(Petitioner).\1\ This proceeding arises from an application filed on
April 11, 2008, by Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) \2\ for
renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-42 and DPR-60 for an
additional 20 years of operation at the Prairie Island Nuclear
Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (PINGP).\3\ PINGP is located near the
City of Red Wing, Minnesota, on the west bank of the Mississippi River.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In response to a June 17, 2008, notice of opportunity for
hearing published in the Federal Register (73 FR 34335), Petitioner
timely filed a request for hearing and a petition to intervene in
accordance with 10 CFR 2.309.
\2\ The NRC has approved the transfer of operating authority
over Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, from
Nuclear Management Company, LLC (NMC) to Northern States Power
Company (Northern States). See Order Approving Transfer of License
and Conforming Amendment (September 15, 2008), at 3 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML082521182).
\3\ The operating licenses for PINGP, Units 1 and 2, expire on
August 9, 2013, and October 29, 2014, respectively. The April 11,
2008, application for renewal was supplemented by a letter dated May
16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The participants are advised of the following information regarding
the scheduling of the oral argument:
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008.
Time: 9 a.m. Central Time (CT).
Location: Dakota County Judicial Center--Courtroom 2E, 1560 Highway
55, Hastings, MN 55033.
The format of oral argument, including the allocation of time to
the various participants, will be determined at the outset of the
session. Generally, the Board asks that the Parties refrain from simply
rehashing the content of their pleadings. Rather, the Board wishes to
further explore with the Parties the positions they took in their
written submissions. The oral argument will serve principally to assist
the Board in the discharge of its decisional responsibilities regarding
the admissibility of the Petitioner's proffered contentions. At the
same time, however, it should provide counsel with a valuable
opportunity to clarify for the Board those issues to be addressed.
The Board has identified 12 specific issues it wishes the Parties
to address at oral argument. Counsel should arrive fully prepared to
discuss each topic that is a matter of concern to his or her client(s).
While the following list does not purport to include all issues that
may arise, it should help to guide the Parties in their preparation.
(1) Does the NRC Staff still challenge Mr. Mahowald's
representation, in light of the Petitioner's September 19, 2008, Reply
at footnote 1 and Mahowald Declaration II?
(2) As to Contention 1, what does the Petitioner allege to be
lacking from Applicant's Environmental Report (ER)? Provide citations
to any cases, regulations, or statutes which spell out the
requirements.
(3) As to Contention 2, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to argue whether and to what extent the MACCS2 code is
applicable to the severe accident mitigation analysis (SAMA) or the
license extension. Applicant should be prepared to address ``user
inputs'' to the code. The Board wishes to explore the extent to which
the calculation that converts level of contamination to decontamination
cost is controlled by user input.
(4) As to Contention 3, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to discuss the level of detail with which Applicant must
analyze impacts on endangered species in the ER. Parties should provide
legal support for their positions.
(5) As to Contention 4, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to address whether any ``special circumstances'' exist that
would make the NRC's category 1 finding inapplicable. Petitioner should
discuss the necessity to request a waiver in this case.
(6) As to Contention 5, Applicant should be prepared to discuss the
demographics analysis in the ER and whether the Indian Community was
specifically included. All Parties should be prepared to identify any
requirements for addressing environmental justice in the ER that
Applicant has not met.
(7) As to Contention 6, Applicant, Petitioner, and Staff should be
prepared to address whether or not the ``coatings issues'' are
addressed as part of the Current Licensing Basis (CLB). Petitioner
should be prepared to address any plant specific data relied upon to
support this contention.
(8) As to Contention 7, Applicant should be prepared to explain how
the surveillance capsules are used. Applicant should also be prepared
to address the current vessel surveillance plan and the proposed
enhancements. If the proposed changes are significant, when would
interested parties have a chance to review them? Petitioner's
contention alleges that vessel internals are subject to embrittlement,
that embrittlement could cause internals to fail during a loss-of-
coolant accident, and that such a failure could lead to an uncoolable
core geometry. Petitioner should be able to articulate the facts or
expert opinion within the original contention supporting each one of
these links.
(9) As to Contention 8, Petitioner should be prepared to address
whether the ``stress corrosion cracking'' issue is addressed as part of
the CLB. All Parties should be prepared to address the generic
question: If an issue is subject to an Aging Management Plan (AMP)
during the current license period, is it required to be addressed by an
AMP as a part of relicensing?
(10) As to Contention 9, Petitioner should be prepared to identify
what piping system(s) it is referring to and what safety-related
function(s) those systems play. The Applicant should be prepared to
explain the extent to which the Prairie Island facility has buried
piping, what types of systems utilize these buried pipes, and which
pipes, if any, are within the scope of license renewal.
(11) As to Contention 10, Petitioner will be asked if it has
withdrawn this contention based on the statements in its Reply of
September 19 at page 24.
(12) The oral argument will conclude with summary statements by the
Parties on the pending motion to strike filed by Applicant on September
29, 2008, the NRC Staff's Response of October 9, 2008, and the
Petitioner's Answer filed on October 10, 2008.
As an informational matter, the participants are advised that
current planning calls for the proceeding to be made available for live
viewing via the following Internet Web streaming feed: Prairie Island
Oral Argument.
Please be advised that this Web stream will be available for
viewing for 90 days after or until Tuesday, January 27, 2009.
It is so ordered.
[[Page 63024]]
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Rockville, Maryland, October 16, 2008.
William J. Froehlich,
Chairman, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. E8-25148 Filed 10-21-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P