[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 202 (Thursday, October 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54242-54244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26588]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-245]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; 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-21 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO/the licensee)
for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 located in
Waterford, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would modify the applicability requirements
for certain radiation monitors so that the radiation monitors are
required to be operable only when secondary containment integrity is
required to be operable; delineate when secondary containment integrity
is required; modify standby gas treatment operability requirements;
make editorial corrections to clarify the configuration of the
radiation monitors; and revise the associated Bases sections.
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:
Pursuant to 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes
and concludes that the changes do not involve a significant hazards
consideration (SHC) since the proposed change satisfies the criteria
in 10CFR50.92(c). That is, the proposed changes do not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not significantly increase the
probability of an accident since these changes only affect
operability of equipment used for either identifying or mitigating
accident conditions and have no impact on any initiating events for
analyzed accidents previously evaluated.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.2.E makes the
operability requirements of the radiation monitors consistent with
operability requirements of the systems they automatically actuate
and the Standard Technical Specifications NUREG-1433 (Rev 1)
operability requirements for these monitors. The safety function of
these radiation monitors is to monitor the reactor building and the
steam tunnel ventilation exhaust plenums, and the room air at the
refueling floor area to provide prompt indication of a gross release
of radioactive material and, if setpoints are exceeded, actuate
logic which initiates standby gas treatment and isolates normal
ventilation. Conditions which could produce significant radiological
releases and necessitate isolation of the reactor building and steam
tunnel ventilation systems and initiation of the standby gas
treatment system are only permitted to be established when secondary
containment integrity is required. Administrative controls are
established to ensure that secondary containment integrity is
maintained when required to mitigate radiological consequences of
postulated accidents. Proper application of procedural
administrative controls ensure that evolutions, which may result in
significant release of fission products, (including those not
specifically delineated in the proposed technical specification) are
evaluated to determine if secondary containment is required. When
secondary containment integrity is not required, the plant is
prohibited from performing activities which may result in a
significant radiological release and the potential for an analyzed
radiological accident is minimized. Therefore, the need for these
radiation monitors to be operable at all times, including those
instance when either secondary containment integrity or operability
of the standby gas treatment system are not required provides no
additional safety benefit and can be eliminated.
The proposed changes also ensure the requirements for the
radiation monitors (Section 3.2.E), standby gas treatment system
(Section 3.7.B), and secondary containment integrity (Section 3.7.C)
are consistent.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specification 3.7.B,
``Standby Gas Treatment System,'' ensure standby gas treatment
system operability is required whenever secondary containment
integrity is required and ensures the operability requirements for
the standby gas treatment system are specified for activities which
have a potential of significant release of fission products. It
maintains the requirement that standby gas treatment system
operability is required whenever secondary containment integrity is
not required. If secondary containment integrity cannot be
maintained, activities which have the potential of a significant
radiological release are immediately suspended and conditions
established within 24 hours in which secondary containment integrity
is no longer required. Requiring both trains of standby gas
treatment system and three power sources (either two onsite and one
offsite or one onsite and two offsite) provides adequate AC
electrical power during a REFUELING OUTAGE. The operability
requirements for the standby gas treatment system and power supplies
remain unaltered for the fuel handling accident, the design bases
accident during a REFUELING OUTAGE. Therefore, the consequences of
the fuel handling accident, as analyzed, remain unaffected and the
other less limiting transients remain bounded.
Currently, secondary containment integrity is required even when
fuel is removed from the vessel if the control rods are not fully
inserted. This requirement is not necessary for safety and can be
eliminated. The proposed LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION results in
some cases where secondary containment is not required when it would
have been previously (e.g., mode switch in REFUEL with no fuel
movement or withdrawing a single control rod with the vessel head
installed). However, none of these cases would place the plant in a
condition which would result in a significant radiological release
requiring secondary containment or standby gas treatment system
[[Page 54243]]
to mitigate the release. For example, with the mode switch in REFUEL
the refueling interlocks would permit a single control rod to be
withdrawn with the vessel head installed. The core design ensures
that the reactor remains subcritical with the highest control rod
worth withdrawn, therefore, a subcritical reactor with the vessel
head installed has no potential for a significant radiological
release.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not significantly increase
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 do not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident since these changes only affect
operability requirements for equipment used either to identify or
mitigate accident conditions and have no impact on any initiating
events which could result in a new or different kind of accident
from accidents previously evaluated.
None of these changes affect precursor events which could lead
to a new or different kind of accident and therefore, these 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 margin of safety provided by the existing technical
specifications is not significantly reduced by the proposed changes.
While the radiation monitor applicability requirements are being
reduced, the radiation monitors, standby gas treatment system and
secondary containment will continue to remain operable during
conditions in which there is a potential for gross release of
fission products. The proposed changes are consistent with the
requirements for the standby gas treatment system initiation and the
secondary containment isolations which are activated by these
radiation monitors. There are no accidents postulated which
necessitate the use of these radiation monitors when plant
conditions do not require secondary containment integrity to be
operable. Conservatism is added in the requirements for secondary
containment integrity and an additional LIMITING CONDITION FOR
OPERATION is provided to address the condition when secondary
containment integrity cannot be met.
Therefore, these changes do 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 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
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 November 18, 1996, 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, and the Waterford 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
[[Page 54244]]
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: 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 Phillip F. McKee: 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 Gerald
Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place,
Hartford, CT, 06103-3499, 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 August 29, 1996, 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 Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope
Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Andersen,
Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project Directorate, Division of
Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-26588 Filed 10-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
