[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