[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23140]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 19, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-423]

 

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. 
NPF-49, issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO/the 
licensee), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 
No. 3, located in New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications 
(TS) to modify surveillance requirements by increasing the acceptance 
criterion for the closure of the main steam isolation valves (MSIVs) 
from 5 seconds to 10 seconds.
    The proposed change would permit Millstone Unit 3 to resume plant 
operation. To resume plant operations Millstone Unit 3 must meet the 
operability requirements of the Technical Specifications for the MSIVs. 
On September 8, 1994, during monthly testing of the ``C'' MSIV, it was 
determined that the MSIV was inoperable because its closure time was 
determined to be greater than 5 seconds. Subsequent efforts to meet the 
required closure time have been unsuccessful.
    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 consideration (SHC), which is 
presented below:

    * * * The proposed change does not involve an SHC because the 
change would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
    NNECO's proposal to modify Surveillance Requirement 4.7.1.5.1 of 
the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously analyzed.
    The increase in the MSIV stroke time from 5 seconds to 10 
seconds has no adverse impact on the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis 
Report] analyses for the feedwater line break and the main steam 
line break. The applicable acceptance criteria (e.g., DNBR 
[departure from nucleate boiling ratio] and pressure) for both 3-
loop and 4-loop operation continue to be met with an increase in the 
MSIV closure time from 5 to 10 seconds. No other accident analyses 
discussed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR are affected by the proposed 
increase in the MSIV closure time.
    Additionally, evaluations have determined that the proposal does 
not affect the environmental qualification program for either the 
main steam valve building or the containment, does not impact the 
design basis accident radiological consequence calculations, does 
not negatively impact fluid transient evaluations, has a negligible 
impact on the long term cooling capacity of the steam generators, 
and does not change pipe rupture mechanistic effects.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously analyzed.
    The proposed change does not introduce any new failure modes. It 
simply modifies an acceptance criterion for a surveillance 
requirement. As such, increasing the MSIV stroke time from 5 seconds 
to 10 seconds affects only the FSAR analyses for the feedwater line 
break and the main stream line break. No other accident analyses 
discussed in Chapter 15 of the FSAR are affected by the proposed 
increase in the MSIV closure time. The applicable acceptance 
criteria (e.g., DNBR and pressure) for both 3-loop and 4-loop 
operation continue to be met with an increase in the MSIV closure 
time from 5 to 10 seconds.
    Additionally, evaluations have determined that the proposal does 
not affect the environmental qualification program for either the 
main steam valve building or the containment, does not impact the 
design basis accident radiological consequence calculations, does 
not negatively impact fluid transient evaluations, has a negligible 
impact on the long term cooling capacity of the steam generators, 
and does not change pipe rupture mechanistic effects.
    Thus, the proposed change does 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 increase in the MSIV stroke time from 5 seconds to 10 
seconds has no adverse impact on the FSAR analyses for the feedwater 
line break and the main steam line break. The applicable acceptance 
criteria (e.g., DNBR and pressure) for both 3-loop and 4-loop 
operation continue to be met with an increase in the MSIV closure 
time from 5 to 10 seconds. No other accident analyses discussed in 
Chapter 15 of the FSAR are affected by the proposed increase in the 
MSIV closure time. Additionally, the proposed change does not impact 
the consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
    Based on the above, there is no 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 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, 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 October 19, 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 aspects(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 then 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: 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 September 9, 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 13th day of September 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. 94-23140 Filed 9-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M