[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2523-2525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-829]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-336]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., 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-65 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the
licensee, or NNECO), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power
Station, Unit No. 2, located in Waterford, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would change Technical Specifications (TSs)
3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems--ECCS Subsystems--Tavg [greater
than or equal to] 300 [degrees Fahrenheit];'' 3.6.2.1, ``Containment
Systems--Depressurization and Cooling Systems--Containment Spray and
Cooling Systems;'' 3.7.1.2, ``Plant Systems--Auxiliary Feedwater
Pumps;'' 3.7.3.1, ``Plant Systems--Reactor Building Closed Cooling
Water System;'' and 3.7.4.1, ``Plant Systems--Service Water System.''
Changes to the acceptance criteria contained in these TSs are necessary
based on revised hydraulic analyses and related accident analyses.
Also, the bases of the associated TSs will be modified to address the
proposed changes.
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:
In accordance with 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the proposed
changes and has concluded that they do not involve a significant
hazards consideration (SHC). The basis for this conclusion is that
the three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised. The
proposed changes do not involve an SHC because the changes would
not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the acceptance criteria of the Technical
Specification surveillance requirements for various Engineered
Safety Features (ESF) pumps are consistent with the hydraulic and
accident analyses. The revised acceptance criteria will ensure that
pump degradation, which could adversely impact the accident
analyses, will be detected.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specification surveillance
requirements and associated Bases will have no adverse effect on
plant operation or accident mitigation equipment. The proposed
changes can not cause an accident, and they do not affect pump
operation. The pumps will continue to operate as assumed in the
analyses to mitigate the design basis accidents. Therefore, there
will be no significant increase in the probability or consequences
of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the acceptance criteria of the Technical
Specification surveillance requirements for various ESF pumps are
consistent with the hydraulic and accident analyses. The revised
acceptance criteria will ensure that pump degradation, which could
adversely impact the accident analyses, will be detected.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specification surveillance
requirements and associated Bases will not affect the way the pumps
are operated during normal plant operations, or how the pumps will
operate after an accident. In addition, ESF pump operation is not an
accident initiator. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes to the acceptance criteria of the Technical
Specification surveillance requirements for various ESF pumps are
consistent with the hydraulic and accident analyses. The revised
acceptance criteria will ensure that pump degradation, which could
adversely impact the accident analyses, will be detected.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specification surveillance
requirements and associated Bases will have no adverse effect on
equipment important to safety. The equipment will continue to
function as assumed in the design basis accident analysis.
Therefore, there will be no significant reduction in the margin of
safety as defined in the Bases for the Technical Specifications
affected by these proposed changes.
The NRC has provided guidance concerning the application of
standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6,
1986, 51 FR 7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to
involve an SHC. The minor change from ``psi'' [pounds per square
inch] to ``psid'' [pounds per square inch differential] is enveloped
by example (i), a purely administrative change to Technical
Specifications. The other changes proposed herein are not enveloped
by a specific example.
As described above, this License Amendment Request does not
impact the probability of an accident previously evaluated, does not
involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated,
and does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Therefore, NNECO has concluded that the proposed changes do
not involve an SHC.
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
[[Page 2524]]
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 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 February 16, 1999, 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 Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich,
Connecticut, or the Waterford Public Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut. 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.
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 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 Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior
Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service Company, P.O. Box 270,
Hartford, Connecticut, 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
[[Page 2525]]
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 January 4, 1999, 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 Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich,
Connecticut, and the Waterford Public Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of January 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-829 Filed 1-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
