Northern States Power Company; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to

Facility Operating License No. DPR-22 Proposed No Significant Hazards

Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

[Docket No. 50-263]

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.

DPR-22 issued to Northern States Power Company (the licensee) for

operation of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant located in Wright

County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendment would revise Section 3.6.C, Coolant

Chemistry, and 3/4.17.B, Control Room Emergency Filtration System, of

the Technical Specifications (TS), Appendix A of the Operating License

for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The changes were proposed

to establish TS requirements consistent with modified analysis inputs

used for the evaluation of the radiological consequences of the main

steam line break accident. This amendment request was originally

noticed in the Federal Register on May 6, 1998 (63 FR 25115). On June

19, 1998, supplemented July 1, 1998, the licensee submitted an

application that superseded in its entirety the licensee's previous

submittal dated April 11, 1997.

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.

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 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.

A limit is established in the plant Technical Specifications for

steady state radioiodine concentration in the reactor coolant to

ensure that in the event of a release of radioactive material to the

environment due to a postulated high energy line break up to and

including a design basis Main Steam Line Break Accident, radiation

doses are maintained well within the regulatory guidelines. The

steady state radioiodine concentration in the reactor coolant is an

input for analysis of the radiological consequences of an accident

due to a Main Steam Line Break outside of containment and postulated

high energy line breaks. In addition, requirements are established

in the Technical Specifications for control room habitability.

During an accident, the control room emergency filtration system

provides filtered air to pressurize the Control Room to minimize the

activity, and therefore the radiological dose, inside the control

room.

A change is proposed for the steady state radioiodine

concentration. This value is conservative with respect to the value

used in the Main Steam Line Break dose consequences analysis and is

consistent with the dose consequences evaluation of a postulated

Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) line break. Changes are proposed to the

limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements for

the Control Room Emergency Filtration Train iodine removal

efficiency. These changes are consistent with the inputs used in the

analysis of the radiological consequences of the postulated RWCU

line break and the Main Steam Line Break Accident. Changes to

testing requirements are more restrictive and in accordance with the

applicable regulatory guidance. These proposed requirements maintain

operating restrictions for analytical inputs used in the analysis of

the Main Steam Line Break Accident. Evaluation of these events has

demonstrated that the postulated radiological consequences will also

remain within the licensing basis established in the AEC [Atomic

Energy Commission] Provisional Operating License Safety Evaluation

Report, dated March 18, 1970, thus the proposed changes do not

result in an increase in the consequences of previously evaluated

accidents.

The analysis of the Main Steam Line Break Accident performed

using a reactor coolant radioiodine concentration of 2 [micro]Ci/gm

dose equivalent Iodine-131 and a control room ventilation filter

efficiency consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications

changes demonstrated that radiological consequences of the Main

Steam Line Break are not changed significantly. The radiological

consequences of the Main Steam Line Break Accident remain within the

exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR 50 Appendix A, General

Design Criterion 19. The offsite dose consequences remain bounded by

the original licensing basis provided in the AEC Provisional

Operating License Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 18, 1970.

The control room doses calculated for the hot standby Main Steam

Line Break Accident using the TID-14844 dose conversion factors

remain bounded by the dose consequences of the comparable design

basis loss of coolant accident.

The evaluation of the postulated RWCU line break, performed

using a reactor coolant radioiodine concentration of 0.25 [micro]Ci/

gm dose equivalent Iodine-131 and a control room ventilation filter

efficiency consistent with the proposed Technical Specifications

changes, demonstrated that the radiological consequences of this

event remain within the exposure guidelines of 10 CFR 100 and 10 CFR

50 Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19. The offsite dose

consequences remain bounded by the Main Steam Line Break as

established in the licensing basis provided in the AEC Provisional

Operating License Safety Evaluation Report, dated March 18, 1970.

The proposed Technical Specification changes do not introduce

new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter

existing system relationships. The proposed changes do not introduce

new failure modes. The system improvements to reduce bypass leakage

during postulated accidents do not have an adverse effect on control

room habitability. Therefore, this amendment will not cause a

significant increase in the probability of an accident previously

evaluated for the Monticello plant.

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

new or different kind of accident from any accident previously

analyzed.

The proposed Technical Specification changes do not introduce

new equipment operating modes, nor do the proposed changes alter

existing system relationships. Operator action to mitigate the

consequences of the postulated RWCU line break is conservative based

on the simple action required by the operator to close the

containment isolation valves within 10 minutes. Isolation at 10

minutes is very conservative since a safety related RWCU containment

isolation system that was installed during the 1998 refueling outage

would effect an automatic isolation within one minute of the RWCU

break.

The proposed change to the specification for reactor coolant

dose equivalent radioiodine is conservative with respect to the re-

evaluation of the Main Steam Line Break Accident for the more

conservative hot standby initial condition for the postulated

accident. The proposed change to the specification for reactor

coolant dose equivalent radioiodine is consistent with the

postulated high energy line break of a Reactor

[[Page 40322]]

Water Cleanup line. The proposed changes to the limiting conditions

for operation and surveillance requirements for the control room

emergency filtration train iodine removal efficiency are consistent

with the inputs used in the evaluation of the radiological

consequences of the postulated RWCU line break and the Main Steam

Line Break Accident. The system improvements to reduce bypass

leakage during postulated accidents do not have an adverse effect on

control room habitability. Therefore, the proposed amendment will

not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. The proposed amendment will not involve a significant

reduction in the margin of safety.

Surveillance data has demonstrated the proposed requirements are

within the current capability of the facility. The proposed changes

maintain margins of safety. These proposed requirements maintain

operating restrictions for analytical inputs used in the analysis of

the bounding postulated high energy line break of a Reactor Water

Cleanup line and the Main Steam Line Break Accident. The proposed

change to the specification for reactor coolant dose equivalent

radioiodine is conservative with respect to the re-evaluation of the

Main Steam Line Break Accident for the more conservative hot standby

initial condition for the postulated accident. The proposed change

to the specification for reactor coolant dose equivalent radioiodine

is consistent with the postulated high energy line break of a

Reactor Water Cleanup line. The evaluation of these postulated

events determined that the radiological consequences remain within

the exposure guidelines of 10CFR100 and of 10CFR50 Appendix A,

General Design Criterion 19 and within the original licensing basis

contained in the Provisional Operating License. The proposed changes

to the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance

requirements for the control room emergency filtration train iodine

removal efficiency provide assurance that the system will perform at

the filter efficiency as used in the evaluation of the radiological

consequences of the postulated events. Therefore, the proposed

amendment will 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 by close of business 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 August 27, 1998, 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 55401. 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.

[[Page 40323]]

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 June 19, 1998, as supplemented July 1,

1998, and the licensee's letter dated May 5, 1997, which are 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 22nd day of July 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tae Kim,

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

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

[FR Doc. 98-20110 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P