[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