[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10666]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 4, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 

Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; 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 
No. 2, located in New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TS) to change the laboratory testing protocol for the charcoal 
absorbers for the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (TS 
3.7.6.1) and the Enclosure Building Filtration System (TS 3.6.5.1).
    Because the present TS requires a test on carbon samples of 
charcoal absorbers that the licensee's vendor had not and could not 
perform, the TS must be changed to allow testing of carbon samples to a 
standard that is more accurate and capable of performance. The plant is 
presently operating and during a review of the recent ventilation 
system testing, the licensee's Quality Services Department discovered a 
discrepancy in the references identified in the vendor test procedure 
as compared to the Millstone Unit 2 TS requirements. Further, on April 
12, 1994, the licensee discovered that the vendor's test equipment 
could not support the laboratory test required by the testing standard 
currently referenced in the Millstone Unit No. 2 TS. The inplace 
charcoal for the ``B'' facilities of the Control Room Emergency 
Ventilation System and the Enclosure Building Ventilation System were 
conservatively determined to be inoperable because the surveillance 
performed on these units had been satisfied utilizing a standard (ASTM 
Standard D3803-79/86) not specified in the Millstone Unit 2 TS. Thus 
the licensee immediately declared the affected facilities inoperable 
and entered the 7 day action statement. The action statements require 
the affected systems to be restored to an operable status within 7 days 
or the plant be placed in at least hot standby within the next 6 hours 
and in cold shutdown within the following 30 hours. Due to the fact 
that the time necessary to process the application for amendment would 
be longer than the remaining time of the 7 day action statement, 
exigent action is justified in order to reduce the time of enforcement 
discretion which was granted until the license amendment is issued.
    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 amendments 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.
    NNECO's proposal to revise Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specifications 4.6.5.1.b.2., 4.6.5.1.c, 4.7.6.1.c.2, 4.7.6.1.d, 
4.9.15.b.2, and 4.9.15.c will permit carbon samples to be tested in 
accordance with ASTM D3803-89 versus ANSI N509-1976. ASTM Standard 
D3803-89 is used industry wide, and is acknowledged by the NRC as an 
acceptable method for the testing of activated charcoal bed filters. 
In addition, testing in accordance with ASTM Standard D3803-89 
yields more accurate results than testing in accordance with ANSI 
N509-1976. The removal efficiency requirement is not affected by the 
proposed changes.
    NNECO's proposal to correct the reference to Regulatory position 
C.6.a in Technical Specification 4.9.15.b.2 is an editorial 
correction.
    Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve an 
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 changes to Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specifications 4.6.5.1.b.2, 4.6.5.1.c, 4.7.6.1.c.2, 4.7.6.1.d, 
4.9.15.b.2, and 4.9.15.c do not involve any physical modifications 
to any equipment, structures, or components, nor do they involve any 
changes to any plant operating procedures. The only change would be 
to use a more reliable method to determine filter efficiency at the 
laboratory.
    NNECO's proposal to correct the reference to Regulatory Position 
C.6.a in Technical Specification 4.9.15.b.2 is an editorial 
correction.
    Thus, the proposed changes do 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 changes to Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specifications 4.6.5.1.b.2, 4.6.5.1.c, 4.6.5.1.c.2, 4.7.6.1.d, 
4.9.15.b.2, and 4.9.15.c do not modify the requirement for carbon 
sample removal efficiency, do not involve a change in any safety 
limits, setpoints, or design margins, and do not affect any 
protective boundaries. Additionally, the proposed methodology has 
been determined to be more accurate.
    NNECO's proposal to correct the reference to Regulatory Position 
C.6.a in Technical Specification 4.9.15.b.2 is an editorial 
correction.
    Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 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 June 3, 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 particularly 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 providing 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 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 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 John F. Stolz, Director, Project 
Directorate I-4: petitioners' 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 Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & 
Howard, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 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 April 14, 1994, as supplemented April 
20, 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 26th day of April 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vernon L. Rooney,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-10666 Filed 5-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M