[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48672-48675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23157]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-423]
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 or NRC) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or the
licensee) for operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3
(MP3), located in New London County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS)
1.40, ``Spent Fuel Pool Storage Pattern''; 1.1, ``3-OUT-OF-4 AND 4-OUT-
OF-4''; 3/4.9.1.2, ``Boron Concentration''; 3/4.9.7, ``Crane Travel--
Spent Fuel Storage Areas''; 3/4.9.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity'';
3.9.14, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage Pattern''; 5.6.1.1, ``Design
Features--Criticality''; and 5.6.3, ``Design Features--Capacity.'' In
addition, the proposed amendment would replace figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2
with 4 new figures and make changes to the TS Bases consistent with
changes to their respective TS sections. These changes are being made
to support the proposed increase in the capacity of the spent fuel pool
at MP3 from 756 assemblies to 1,860 assemblies (an increase of 1,104).
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:
[[Page 48673]]
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 a significant hazard because they
would not;
2.1 Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In the analysis of safety issues concerning the expanded pool
storage capacity, NNECO has considered the following potential
accident scenarios;
a. A spent fuel assembly drop with control rod and handling tool
b. A fuel pool gate drop
c. Potential damage due to a seismic event
d. Fuel assembly misloading/drop or pool temperature exceeding
160 deg.F
e. An accidental drop of a rack module during installation
activity in the pool
The probability that any of the first four accidents in the
above list can occur is not significantly increased by the
modification itself. All work in the pool area will be controlled
and performed in strict accordance with specific written procedures.
As for an installation accident, safe load paths will be established
that will prevent heavy loads from being transported over the spent
fuel. Proper functioning of the cranes will be checked and verified
before rack installation, and appropriate administrative controls
imposed. All lift rigging and the crane/hoist system will be
verified to comply with applicable plant and site procedures. All
heavy lifts will be performed in accordance with established station
procedures, which will comply with NUREG-0612, ``Control of Heavy
Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.'' These actions will minimize the
possibility of a heavy load drop accident. Fuel assembly handling
procedures and techniques are not affected by adding spent fuel
racks, and the probability of a fuel handling accident or misloading
is not increased.
Accordingly, the proposed modification does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
NNECO has evaluated the consequences of an accidental drop of a
fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool. The results show that such an
accident will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their
functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin, keff
less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained. The radiological
consequences of a fuel assembly drop are not increased from the
existing postulated fuel drop accident in Millstone Unit No. 3 FSAR
[Final Safety Analysis Report] Section 15.7.4. Thus, the
consequences of such an accident remain acceptable, and are not
different from any previously evaluated accidents that the NRC has
reviewed and accepted.
The consequences of an accidental drop of a fuel pool gate onto
racks has been evaluated. The results show that such an accident
will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their
functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin, keff
less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained. In addition, the
Technical Specifications do not allow fuel to be under a fuel pool
gate when one is moved. The analysis indicates no radiological
consequences from this postulated accident. Thus, the consequences
of such an accident remain acceptable, and are not different from
any previously evaluated accidents that he NRC has reviewed and
accepted.
The consequences of a design basis seismic event have been
evaluated and found acceptable. The proposed additional racks and
existing racks have been analyzed in their new configuration and
found safe and impact-free during seismic motion, save for the
baseplate-to-baseplate impacts of the proposed additional racks
which are shown to cause no damage to the racks[,] cells[,] or
Boral. The structural capability of the pool walls and basemat will
not be exceeded under the loads. Thus, the consequences of a seismic
event are not significantly increased.
The consequences of a misloading/drop of a fuel assembly during
fuel movement have been evaluated. The minimum subcriticality
margin, keff less than or equal to 0.95, will continue to
be maintained because of the proposed pool water soluble boron
related requirements. Thus, the consequences of such an accident
remain acceptable, and are not different from any previously
evaluated accidents that the NRC has reviewed and accepted.
The consequences of an accidental drop of a rack module into the
pool during placement have been evaluated. The analysis confirmed
that very limited damage to the liner could occur, which is
repairable. Any small seepage occurring is well within makeup
capability, and is mitigated by emergency operating procedures. All
movements of racks over the pool will comply with the applicable
guidelines. Therefore, the consequences of an installation accident
are not increased from any previously evaluated accident.
The consequences of a spent fuel cask drop into the pool have
not been considered in this submittal since NNECO is not currently
licensed to move a fuel cask into the Millstone Unit No. 3 cask pit
area.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes to the
Technical Specifications and licensing basis for Millstone Unit No.
3 do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of
any accident previously evaluated.
2.2 Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously analyzed.
The proposed change does not alter the operating requirements of
the plant or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the
design basis accidents. Therefore, the potential for an unanalyzed
accident is not created. The postulated failure modes associated
with the change do not significantly decrease the coolability,
criticality margin, or structural integrity of the spent fuel in the
pool. The resulting structural, thermal, and seismic loads are
acceptable.
Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
2.3 Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The function of the spent fuel pool is to store the fuel
assemblies in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all
environmental and abnormal loadings, such as an earthquake, fuel
assembly drop, fuel pool gate drop, or drop of another heavy object.
The new rack design must meet all applicable requirements for safe
storage and be functionally compatible with the other rack design in
the spent fuel pool.
NNECO has addressed the safety issues related to the expanded
pool storage capacity in the following areas:
1. Material, mechanical, and structural considerations
2. Nuclear criticality
3. Thermal-hydraulic and pool cooling
The mechanical, material, and structural designs of the new
racks have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of NRC ``OT Position for the Review and Acceptance of
Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications'', April 14, 1978, as
amended January 18, 1979. The rack materials used are compatible
with the spent fuel assemblies and the spent fuel pool environment.
The design of the new racks preserves the proper margin of safety
during abnormal loads such as a dropped fuel assembly, a postulated
seismic event, a dropped fuel pool gate, and tensile loads from a
stuck fuel assembly. It has been shown that such loads will not
invalidate the mechanical design and material selection to safely
store fuel in a coolable and subcritical configuration. Also, it has
been shown that the pool structure will maintain its integrity and
function during normal operation, all postulated accident sequences,
and postulated seismic events.
The methodology used in the criticality analysis of the expanded
spent fuel pool storage capacity meets the appropriate NRC
guidelines and the ANSI [American National Standards Institute]
standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is determined by
a neutron multiplication factor less than or equal to 0.95 under all
accident conditions, including uncertainties. This criterion has
been preserved in all analyzed accidents and seismic events.
The special circumstances regarding transitioning to the revised
[T]echnical [S]pecifications was discussed. At present, NNECO
estimates that there will be approximately 120 fuel assemblies
stored in existing racks that will not meet the burnup/enrichment
requirements for storage in these racks under the proposed Technical
Specifications. During the actual reracking effort, including
transfer of these assemblies from existing racks to Region 1 and 2
racks, existing soluble boron and Boraflex related requirements and
surveillances will continue to be enforced. Also, when transferring
these assemblies to Region 1 and 2 racks, the burnup/enrichment
requirements of these racks will be enforced. After fuel transfer is
complete, the revised Technical Specifications will be fully
implemented. These requirements ensure that the neutron
multiplication factor will remain less than or equal to 0.95 during
the whole period of the rerack.
[[Page 48674]]
The rerack thermal hydraulic analysis is based on NNECO's
January 18, 1999, submittal analysis which bound the heat load of
this licensing amendment request. The rerack thermal hydraulic
analysis found that, in the blocked hottest stored assembly, the
local peak water temperature will remain below boiling, and the fuel
clad will not experience high temperatures.
Regarding Technical Specification Surveillance 4.9.7, since the
proposed change continues to meet the requirements of Technical
Specification 3.9.7, that is it prohibits a crane from carrying a
load greater that 2,200 lbs [pounds] over fuel in the spent fuel
pool to preclude fuel damage, the margin of safety is maintained.
Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes to the Technical
Specifications and licensing basis of Millstone Unit No. 3 do not
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety at Millstone
Unit No. 3.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based upon
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.
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 October 7, 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 such 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 that is available
at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document rooms
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 and 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 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 to 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
[[Page 48675]]
hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a for a hearing and 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 Ms. Lillian M.
Cuoco, Esquire, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR 2.1107, the
Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an
application for a license amendment falling within the scope of section
134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154.
Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of any
party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in
controversy among the parties.''
The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing
after oral argument.
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are
found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument,
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the
usual procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G apply.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 19, 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 rooms 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.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of August, 1999.
James W. Clifford,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-23157 Filed 9-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
