[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25302]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 13, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-336]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; 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 (NNECO/the
licensee), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit
No. 2, located in New London County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS) by adding a footnote to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.1.2.d
that defers the performance of Type B and C containment leak rate tests
to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.
On September 24, 1994, NNECO requested the NRC to exercise its
discretion not to enforce compliance with the required actions for
Millstone Unit 2 Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs) 3.6.1.1 and
3.6.1.2 for the remainder of Cycle 12 operations. The enforcement
discretion would permit NNECO to operate Millstone Unit 2 while the
proposed amendment is being processed. Millstone Unit 2 was scheduled
to begin its refueling outage on October 1, and to enter Mode 5 on
October 3, 1994. On September 23, 1994, NNECO discovered that Type B
and C containment leak rate tests for certain containment penetrations
had not been performed within the 24 months as required by SR
4.6.1.2.d. The specific Action Statement for LCO 3.6.1.2. applies and
requires that containment integrity to be restored within 1 hour or
place the plant in hot standby within the next 6 hours, and in cold
shutdown within the following 30 hours. Since SR 4.6.1.2.d was
inadvertently missed, SR 4.0.3 was invoked at approximately 1 p.m. on
September 23, 1994. This SR permits the action requirements to be
delayed for up to 24 hours to permit the completion of a missed
surveillance when the allowable outage time limits of the action
requirements are less than 24 hours. Since the Type C test cannot be
performed while at power and the Type B tests that have exceeded the
24-month period cannot be completed within the 24-hour window,
Millstone Unit 2 would have been forced to shutdown to comply with the
requirements of the Millstone Unit 2 TS.
The NRC staff granted orally on September 24, 1994, NNECO's request
for enforcement discretion associated with Action Statements of LCOs
3.6.1.1. and 3.6.1.2. to be effective until the proposed amendment
would be issued. This enforcement discretion was confirmed by the NRC
letter to NNECO dates September 30, 1994.
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 amendment 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 (SHC) consideration, which is
presented below:
The proposed changes do not involve a SHC because the changes would
not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the
frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2
and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.
This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate
until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the next refueling
outage. This proposal does not modify the maximum allowable leakage
rate at the calculated peak containment pressure, does not impact
the design basis of the containment, and does not change the post-
accident containment response.
On February 8, 1988, NNECO conducted the first Type A test for
the Millstone Unit No. 2 present 10-year service period. The test
passed the ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' ILRTs. The ``As-Found''
leakage result was 0.201 weight percent per day and the ``As-Left''
leakage result was 0.138 weight percent per day. These values
represent 53.6% of 36.8% of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specification Limit of 0.75 La (0.375 weight percent per day,
based on an La equal to 0.5 weight percent per day),
respectively. The second Type A test for the present 10-year service
period was conducted on December 24, 1992. The ``As-Found'' and
``As-Left'' ILRT results were 0.2809 and 0.2577 weight percent per
day, respectively. This values represent 74.9% and 68.7% of the
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specification limit of 0.75La
(0.375 weight percent per day, based on an La equal to 0.5
weight percent per day). In addition, as of December 1992, the total
Type B and C ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' leakage results were 0.049
and 0.008 weight percent per day, respectively. These values
represent 16.3% and 2.7% of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specification limit of 0.6 La (0.3 weight percent per day,
based on an La equal to 0.5 weight percent per day),
respectively. The results of these tests demonstrate that Millstone
Unit No. 2 has maintained control of containment integrity by
maintaining a conservative margin between the acceptance criterion
and the ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' leakage rates.
During the past two refueling outages, there have been few
failures of penetrations/values to pass their LLRTs. During the 1992
and 1990 refueling outages, there were a total of five failures
(four in 1992 and one in 1990) of penetrations/valves to pass their
LLRTs. Of these failures, only one (penetration 23/72 with valves
MS-191B and MS-220B) was a repeat failure. This penetration was
tested successfully approximately five months ago.
During Cycle 12, maintenance has been performed on several
penetrations/valves. Their operability has been assured by the
performance of post-maintenance LLRTs which demonstrated that the
leakage from the penetrations/valves were within their acceptance
criteria.
Additionally, the 48 Type B penetrations (electrical) and 21
Type C penetrations (valves) that are currently outside of the 24
month interval have each passed their last two ``As-Found'' tests,
as a minimum. These results indicate that the penetration/valves are
reliable.
Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance
Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specifications does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously analyzed.
The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d of the
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the
frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2
and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.
This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate
until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the next refueling
outage. This proposal does not make any physical or operational
changes to existing plant structures, systems, or components, does
not modify the maximum allowable leakage rate at the calculated peak
containment pressure, does not impact the design basis of the
containment, and does not change the post-accident containment
response.
In addition, the proposed changes do not modify the acceptance
criteria for the Type A, B, or C tests. Maintaining the leakage
through the containment boundary to the atmosphere within a specific
value ensures that the plant complies with the requirements of
10CFR100. The containment boundary serves as an accident mitigator;
it is not an accident initiator.
Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance
Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specifications does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the
frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2
and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.
This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate
until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the twelfth
refueling outage. This proposal does not make any physical or
operational changes to existing plant structures, systems, or
components, does not modify the containment pressure, does not
impact the design basis of the containment, and does not change the
post-accident containment response.
Additionally, the past Type A, B, and C tests have demonstrated
the leak-tightness of the containment and the reliability of the
penetrations/valves.
Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance
Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specifications does 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 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 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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, 11555 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By November 14, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local
public document room located at the Learning Resource Center, Three
Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New
London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360. 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 signficant 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, 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 20555, 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 Phillip F. McKee, Director, Project
Directorate I-4: 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, and to Ms. L. M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,
Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post Office Box 270, Hartford, CT
06141-0270, 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 September 26, 1994, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the
local public document room, located at the Learning Resource Center,
Three Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New
London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of October 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Guy S. Vissing,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-25302 Filed 10-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
