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

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 License Nos.

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.

[[Page 5858]]

The proposed amendments would change the Bases for the technical

specifications and the licensing basis for the operating licenses

relating to 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 Final Safety Analysis Report (USAR). 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.

In its letter dated January 29, 1997, the licensee requested that

this amendment be reviewed under exigent circumstances. Prairie Island

Unit 2 shut down for refueling on January 25, 1997, and is scheduled to

restart on March 5, 1997. Without review and approval of this license

amendment request by the end of the Unit 2 outage, Prairie Island would

be prevented from resumption of plant operation.

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. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

Probability

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.

Consequences

(1) The intake canal has been evaluated for stability during a

postulated seismic event. The results of the evaluation demonstrates

that the banks of the canal will not liquefy or lose strength during

the event. Therefore, taking credit for the intake canal stability

does not increase the consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

(2) The use of operator action for systems important to safety

to perform properly has been evaluated. There are adequate

indications to allow the operator to recognize the occurrence of the

event. A procedure provides guidance to the operator for reducing

cooling water system demand. This procedure is available in the

control room and all actions are accomplished in the control room.

Adequate time is available for the operator to perform the tasks and

to get feedback on the actions' success or failure. The operators

have been trained on the use of the procedure and continuing

training is planned. Therefore, the use of operator action does not

significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

(3) The potential for operator acts of omission or commission

while reducing cooling water system demand has been evaluated.

An operator act of omission while initially performing the

procedure to reduce cooling water flow could result in cooling water

system demand exceeding the emergency intake line capacity. However,

due to the long time period within which the procedure must be

implemented, control room management oversight and control room

indications and alarms, it is unlikely that this condition would not

be corrected.

Three types of operator acts of commission while performing the

procedure to reduce cooling water flow were considered. (1) Acts

which could increase flow and damage the cooling water pumps are not

credible since the cooling water system flow is assumed to be near

its maximum due to loss of the instrument air and non-safeguards

power when the earthquake occurs. (2) Acts which would reduce flow

to systems required for safe shutdown of the plant were evaluated.

These acts would be indicated by control room alarms and corrected

or out-plant actions would be required which involves more than a

simple act of commission, thus, loss of function of supported

systems due to loss of cooling water flow is not considered

credible. (3) Acts which isolate a cooling water pump incorrectly

were considered. This is a long term wear issue, but not a pump

failure issue.

Operator acts of omission or commission have also been evaluated

probabilistically. This evaluation demonstrated that the probability

of an act of omission or commission is comparable to or less than

other operator evolutions which have previously been licensed for

effective performance of systems important to safety. This

compliments the conclusions from the deterministic evaluation that

these changes do not involve a significant increase in the

probability of a previously evaluated accident.

Therefore, the potential of an operator act of omission or

commission does not significantly increase the consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a

new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

analyzed.

The Cooling Water System is provided in the plant to mitigate

accidents and it is not a design basis accident initiator, thus

these proposed changes do not increase the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident.

The consideration of operator acts of omission or commission is

limited to those acts arising from performance of the cooling water

load management procedure. The evaluation of these actions showed

that a new or different type of accident is not created.

In total, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident

from any accident previously evaluated would not be created by these

changes to the plant licensing basis or amendments to the Cooling

Water Technical Specifications.

3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety because the current Technical Specifications

requirements for safe operation of the Prairie Island plant are

maintained or increased. Plant margin of safety may be reduced by

the reduced flow capacity of the emergency intake line. However,

plant margin is restored by the remedial operator actions which

preserve safe plant operation. Analysis shows that the intake canal

will not fail during a seismic event and thus sufficient time for

reducing cooling water system demand is provided. The procedure for

reducing cooling water demand has been demonstrated on the plant

simulator and operators have been trained. This procedure can be

performed entirely from the control room. Thus, the changes proposed

in this license amendment request do not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety. Additionally, probabilistic

evaluation complements the conclusion that the likelihood for

successful reduction of the cooling water system flow is very high.

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 15 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 15-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

[[Page 5859]]

shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the 15-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

Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications 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 6D22, 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 March 10, 1997, 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. 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 a 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 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 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: Docketing and

Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of

the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so

inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at

1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to John N. Hannon, Director, Project

Directorate III-1: petitioner's name and telephone number, date

petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number

of this Federal Register notice. 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

[[Page 5860]]

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 January 29, 1997, 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 3rd day of February 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Beth A. Wetzel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor

Projects-III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97-3055 Filed 2-6-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P