[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-13763]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-245]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; Consideration of Issuance of
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for 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) for operation
of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, located in New London
County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment adds a new section to Technical
Specification Section 6.17 and would require that procedures be in
place to provide for monitoring and sampling of emergency service water
(ESW) discharge flow during accident conditions when a positive
differential pressure cannot be maintained between ESW and low pressure
coolant injection (LPCI) in the LPCI heat exchangers.
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:
NNECO has reviewed the proposed change in accordance with
10CFR50.92 and concluded that the change does 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 change does not involve an SHC because the
changes would not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
The proposed change does not affect the probability of any
previously evaluated accidents because the proposed change only
affects postaccident operation. The consequences of an accident are
possibly affected by the change since LPCI/torus fluid could enter
the ESW system, and ultimately Long Island Sound, if a positive
differential pressure is not maintained in the LPCI heat exchangers.
There is not a significant increase in the probability of adverse
consequences however, since a passive failure of the LPCI heat
exchangers tubes would be required.
Additionally, at Millstone Unit No. 1, the heat exchangers are
only used for occasional torus cooling during the warmer months of
the year. As such, they experience very little use. In addition,
eddy current testing and shall side pressurization demonstrate tube
integrity each refueling outage. During operation, quarterly
surveillance testing of the LPCI system will identify if any leakage
occurs.
Monitoring of the ESW discharge will allow timely detection of
any radiological leakage. If a release is detected, the appropriate
actions will be taken as the situation requires. Actions could
include the isolation of one heat exchanger, the throttling of ESW
to restore the positive differential pressure with LPCI, or
continued operation with the leakage monitored.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequence of a previously analyzed
accident.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously analyzed.
This change only affects the use of the ESW system under
postaccident conditions. The LPCI system will continue to function
as credited in the accident analyses. No other systems or components
are affected by this proposed Technical Specification change.
Therefore, this change cannot create a new or different kind of
accident.
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
This proposed Technical Specification does not affect normal
LPCI operation for torus cooling. This Specification establishes
controls which ensure that an unmonitored release does not occur,
even if the positive differential pressure does not exist in the
LPCI heat exchanger due to the throttling of LPCI.
Removal of the differential pressure by itself does not promote
failure of the LPCI heat exchanger. For a release to occur, the heat
exchanger has to fail by an independent method. Both heat exchangers
will be eddy current tested each refueling outage to ensure
integrity. Also, routine surveillance of the torus water would
detect any leakage in the heat exchangers during the operating
cycle. These measures provide confidence that the integrity of the
heat exchangers will exist at the time of the postulated accident.
The period of time when ESW pressure may be lower than LPCI
pressure is limited to several days. Considering the integrity of
the heat exchangers, it is very unlikely that they would develop a
leak during this period.
Although unlikely, if a leak were to develop, it will be
detected by the monitoring and sampling. Survey monitoring would be
initiated prior to loss of positive differential pressure. Sampling
ensures that any release lower than the sensitivity of the survey
meter would also be detected and quantified. The quantity of the
release can be estimated by assuming that any measured release
existed continuously from the time that the positive differential
pressure was lost.
Although not relied upon for maintaining system integrity, the
positive differential pressure does provide an additional layer of
defense in depth. In some accident scenarios, it may be replaced by
a monitoring and sampling program. If a release is detected,
appropriate action will be taken as the situation requires.
Considering the small likelihood of a release, the small
consequences of such a release, and the compensatory measures
available, the proposed change does 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 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 July 7, 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 Resources 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 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 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: 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 Gerald
Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place,
Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499, attorney for the license.
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 May 27, 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 Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers
Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New London
Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of June 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Andersen,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-13763 Filed 6-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M