[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16445]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: July 7, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-336]

 

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; 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 the 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 Administrative Controls section to require an 
individual who serves as the Operations Manager to either hold a 
Millstone Unit 2 senior reactor operator (SRO) license or have an SRO 
license at another pressurized water reactor (PWR). If the Operating 
Manager does not hold a Millstone Unit 2 SRO license, then an 
individual serving as the Assistant Operations Manager would be 
required to possess an SRO license at Millstone Unit 2.
    The proposed change would permit Millstone Unit 2 to accelerate 
efforts to strengthen the Millstone Unit 2 Operations Department. 
Exigent action is justified in order to permit the licensee to proceed 
with their efforts to strengthen the Millstone Unit 2 Operations 
Department in a prompt and decisive manner.
    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 evaluated.
    The proposed change affects an administrative control, which was 
based on the guidance of ANSI N18.1-1971. ANSI N18.1-1971 recommended 
that the Operations Manager hold an SRO license. The current guidance 
in Section 4.2.2 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1987 recommends, as one option, that 
the Operations Manager have held a license for a similar unit and the 
Operations Middle Manager hold an SRO license. While the Operations 
Middle Manager position does not exist at Millstone Unit No. 2, we are 
proposing to create the position of Assistant Operations Manager 
(staffed by an individual with an SRO license at Millstone Unit No. 2). 
This individual will be required to meet the requirements for, and will 
have responsibilities as recommended in ANSI/ANS-3.1-1987 for the 
Operations Middle Manager position.
    Therefore, the proposed change requests an exception to ANSI N18.1-
1971 to allow use of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1987 in a limited circumstance. 
Specifically, the proposed revision to Technical Specification 6.3.1 
would require the Operations Manager to either hold an SRO license at 
Millstone Unit No. 2 or have held an SRO at a PWR other than Millstone 
Unit No. 2.
    If the Operations Manager does not hold an SRO license at Millstone 
Unit No. 2, the proposal will require the Assistant Operations Manager 
to hold, and continue to hold, an SRO license. The proposed change 
includes the requirement to have held a license for a similar unit (a 
PWR) in accordance with Section 4.2.2 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1987, if the 
Operations Manager does not hold an SRO license at Millstone Unit No. 
2. For those areas of knowledge that require an SRO license, the 
Assistant Operations Manager will hold an SRO license and provide 
technical guidance normally required by the Operations Manager.
    The proposed change does not alter the design of any system, 
structure, or component, nor does it change the way plant systems are 
operated. It does not reduce the knowledge, qualifications, or skills 
of licensed operators, and does not affect the way the Operations 
Department is managed by the Operations Manager. The Operations Manager 
will continue to maintain the effective performance of his personnel 
and ensure the plant is operated safely and in accordance with the 
requirements of the operating license. Additionally, the Control Room 
operators will continue to be supervised by the licensed Shift 
Supervisors.
    The proposed change does not detract from the Operations Manager's 
ability to perform his primary responsibilities. In this case, by 
having previously held an SRO license for a similar unit, he has 
achieved the necessary training, skills, and experience to fully 
understand the operation of plant equipment and the watch requirements 
for operators.
    In summary, the proposed change does not affect the ability of the 
Operations Manager to provide the plant oversight required of his 
position. Thus, it does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to Technical Specification 6.3.1 does not 
affect the design or function of any plant system, structure, or 
component, nor does it change the way plant systems are operated. It 
does not affect the performance of NRC licensed operators. Operation of 
the plant in conformance with technical specifications and other 
license requirements will continue to be supervised by personnel who 
hold an NRC SRO license. The proposed change to Technical Specification 
6.3.1 ensures that the Operations Manager will be a knowledgeable and 
qualified individual by requiring the individual to have held an SRO 
license at a PWR. Based on the above, the proposed change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change involves an administrative control which is not 
related to the margin of safety as defined in the technical 
specifications. The proposed change does not reduce the level of 
knowledge or experience required of an individual who fills the 
Operations Manager position, nor does it affect the conservative manner 
in which the plant is operated. The Control Room operators will 
continue to be supervised by personnel who hold an SRO license. Thus, 
the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a 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 
Service, 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, 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 
20555.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By August 8, 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 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 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 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 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: 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, 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 June 24, 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 29th day of June 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Guy S. Vissing,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-16445 Filed 7-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M