95-26274. North Atlantic Energy Service 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  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 54524-54525]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-26274]
    
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    [Docket No. 50-443]
    
    
    North Atlantic Energy Service 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. 
    NPF-86 issued to North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (the 
    licensee) for operation of the Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 located in 
    Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
        The proposed amendment would modify the Appendix A Technical 
    Specifications for the Engineered Safety Features Actuation System 
    (ESFAS) Instrumentation. Specifically, the proposed amendment would 
    revise the Seabrook Station Technical Specifications to relocate 
    Functional Unit 6.b, ``Feedwater Isolation--Low RCS Tavg 
    Coincident with a Reactor Trip'' from Technical Specification 3.3.2. 
    ``Engineered Safety Features Actuation System Instrumentation'' to the 
    Seabrook Station Technical Requirements Manual which is a licensee 
    controlled document.
        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 changes do not involve a significant increase in 
    the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
        The change considered for the relocation of the feedwater 
    isolation setpoint from the Technical Specifications does not impose 
    any new performance requirements on any system or component which 
    could subsequently cause associated design criteria to be exceeded. 
    The structural and functional integrity of the plant's structures, 
    systems and components is maintained. This change does not affect 
    the initiators of any transients evaluated in the Updated Final 
    Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
        The sequence of obtaining feedwater isolation on low Tavg 
    coincident with reactor trip is not credited in any of the LOCA and 
    non-LOCA accidents evaluated in the UFSAR. Feedwater isolation is 
    initiated for other reasons such as a Safety Injection (SI) 
    actuation. This change is administrative in nature, in that it 
    relocates the function from the Technical Specifications to the 
    Seabrook Station Technical Requirements Manual and there are no 
    changes to the plant's structures, systems and components.
        Since, for the reasons given above, the results of the UFSAR 
    analyses are not affected by the implementation of the change, there 
    is, therefore, no adverse impact on the radiological consequences of 
    accidents reported in the UFSAR. Furthermore, this change does not 
    degrade fission product barriers assumed in the dose consequence 
    analysis such as the fuel cladding, the reactor pressure vessel, and 
    containment. The performance and integrity of accident mitigating 
    structures, systems and components such as the Emergency Feedwater 
    and Safety Injection systems, are not affected by the change. 
    Consequently, the ability of these systems to limit radiological 
    consequences as described in the UFSAR is not adversely affected. 
    Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve a 
    significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
    accident previously evaluated.
        2. The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new 
    or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
    evaluated.
        The proposed change does not create any new failure modes for 
    any structure, system or component. All design and performance 
    criteria will continue to be met and no new single failure scenario 
    is created that is not bounded by the accidents described in the 
    UFSAR. The proposed change to the Technical Specifications does not 
    introduce any new challenges to structures, systems and components 
    that could introduce a new type of accident. Therefore the proposed 
    changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
    accident from any accident previously evaluated.
        3. The proposed changes do not result in a significant reduction 
    in a margin of safety.
        The accidents analyzed in the UFSAR have been reviewed relative 
    to the feedwater isolation on low RCS Tavg coincident with 
    reactor trip. The applicable design criteria and the pertinent 
    licensing basis acceptance criteria continue to be met. The margin 
    of safety as defined in the Bases to the Technical Specifications is 
    not reduced and the design and safety analysis limits remain 
    applicable.
    
        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 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 
    
    [[Page 54525]]
    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 24, 1995, 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 Exeter Public Library, Founders Park, Exeter, 
    NH 03833. 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, 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, and to Lillian M. Cuoco, 
    Esquire, Northeast Utilities Service Company, P.O. 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 20, 1995, 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 Exeter Public Library, Founders 
    Park, Exeter, NH 03833.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of October 1995.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    Albert W. De Agazio, Sr.,
     Project Manager, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor 
    Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 95-26274 Filed 10-23-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    

Document Information

Published:
10/24/1995
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
95-26274
Pages:
54524-54525 (2 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 50-443
PDF File:
95-26274.pdf