[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36583-36585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17653]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-336]
Northeast Utilities Service 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-65 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the
licensee) for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit
No. 2, located in New London, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment was requested on July 3, 1996, and would
provide a one-time change to Millstone Unit 2 (MP2) Technical
Specification 3.9.1, ``Refueling Operations, Boron Concentration.'' The
proposed change would remove the requirement that the boron
concentration in all filled portions of the Reactor Coolant System be
``uniform.'' This change would only be applicable during the MP2 Cycle
13 mid-cycle core offload. The requested change supersedes the June 3,
1996, request.
On March 14, 1996, during surveillance testing, it was discovered
that a Low Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) valve could not be closed.
In order to repair the valve, the Shutdown Cooling System will have to
be removed from service since it is not possible to isolate flow
through a stuck open LPSI valve with Shutdown Cooling in operation. The
repair requires an offload of the core to the Spent Fuel Pool which
will permit removal of the Shutdown Cooling System from service.
Since the core offload could not have been anticipated at the time
of shutdown, the Reactor Coolant System was not borated to the
refueling concentration required by the Technical Specifications (TSs).
The proposed one-time TS change would strike the words ``of all
filled portions'' and ``uniform and'' and add a footnote indicating
that, for the Cycle 13 mid-cycle core offload activities, it is
acceptable for the boron concentrations of the water volumes in the
steam generators and the connecting piping to be as low as 1300 ppm.
The Bases for 3.9.1 would be modified to explain that the boron
concentration of the water volumes in the Pressurizer, Shutdown Cooling
System, Reactor Vessel, Refueling Pool, and the associated connecting
piping will be maintained at 1950 ppm boron concentration. This
concentration will be high enough to ensure that, even in the unlikely
event that all of the lower boron concentration water from the Steam
Generators and connecting piping were to mix with the Shutdown Cooling
System water, the resulting Shutdown Cooling System boron concentration
will remain greater than the minimum required refueling boron
concentration.
The initial June 3, 1996, request would have required that the
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) inventory be reduced to mid-loop and
borate the RCS to greater than 1820 ppm boron to maintain the core at
least 5% subcritical during refueling. The current request will reduce
the RCS inventory to a level above mid-loop and borate the RCS to 1950
ppm to achieve the subcritical conditions.
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:
The proposed changes do not involve [a significant hazards
consideration] because the changes would not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
Refueling Operations Technical Specification 3.9.1 requires
that, with the reactor vessel head unbolted or removed, the boron
concentration of all filled portions of the Reactor Coolant System
and the refueling canal shall be maintained uniform and sufficient
to ensure that the more restrictive of the following conditions is
met:
a. Either a Keff of 0.95 or less, or
b. A boron concentration of greater than or equal to 1720 ppm
The proposed technical specification change would strike the
words ``of all filled portions'' and ``uniform and'' and add a
footnote indicating that for the Cycle 13 mid-cycle core offload
activities, it is acceptable for the boron concentrations of the
water volumes in the steam generators and connecting piping to be as
low as 1300 ppm. In addition, a surveillance will be added to
determine that the boron concentration in the steam generators is
greater than or equal to 1300 ppm prior to entry into Mode 6.
The impact of the change on the boron dilution accident and the
loss of shutdown cooling flow has been evaluated. Based upon this
evaluation, the proposed change to Technical Specification 3.9.1
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of these accidents. The probability of a boron dilution
accident or a loss of shutdown cooling event is not increased by
allowing the RCS [reactor coolant system] boron concentration in the
stagnant regions of the RCS to be less than the previously required
concentration since this is compensated by increasing the boron
concentration requirement of the shutdown cooling loop in Mode 6.
The consequences of a boron dilution accident would not be
increased. In fact, the compensatory measure of increasing the RCS
boron concentration in the shutdown cooling loops and reactor vessel
core regions will result in a higher initial boron concentration for
the boron dilution accident, which would actually increase the time
to core criticality, ensuring that the operator has at least 30
minutes to intervene. The consequences of a loss of shutdown cooling
flow are not increased as the core would continue to remain greater
than 5% subcritical (assuming all the control element assemblies
remain inserted) without operator intervention even if the less
borated water in the stagnant regions of the RCS reached the core
regions without mixing.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
By maintaining 1950 ppm in the active region of the RCS, the
required shutdown margin is assured, even in the unlikely event that
the stagnant [regions] of the RCS mix with the active regions. Thus,
the proposed technical specification change would not create the
possibility of a new or different type of accident than previously
evaluated. Further, the proposed change has no impact on the
mitigation of a boron dilution accident or a loss of shutdown
cooling event.
[[Page 36584]]
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed technical specification change will not result in a
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The results of the
boron dilution accident, and the loss of shutdown cooling event are
not adversely impacted by the modification to the RCS boration
technical specification. In the event of a boron dilution accident,
the operator will continue to have at least 30 minutes to prevent
core criticality. Without crediting operator intervention, the
potential core boron reduction associated with a loss of shutdown
cooling event will not result in core criticality. As such, there is
no 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 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 August 12, 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 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
[[Page 36585]]
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 Ms. L. M.
Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities Services Company,
Post Office Box 270, Hartford, Connecticut 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 July 3, 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 3rd day of July 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel G. McDonald,
Sr. Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project Directorate, Division
of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-17653 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
