[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-25302]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 13, 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-65, 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) by adding a footnote to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.1.2.d 
that defers the performance of Type B and C containment leak rate tests 
to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.
    On September 24, 1994, NNECO requested the NRC to exercise its 
discretion not to enforce compliance with the required actions for 
Millstone Unit 2 Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs) 3.6.1.1 and 
3.6.1.2 for the remainder of Cycle 12 operations. The enforcement 
discretion would permit NNECO to operate Millstone Unit 2 while the 
proposed amendment is being processed. Millstone Unit 2 was scheduled 
to begin its refueling outage on October 1, and to enter Mode 5 on 
October 3, 1994. On September 23, 1994, NNECO discovered that Type B 
and C containment leak rate tests for certain containment penetrations 
had not been performed within the 24 months as required by SR 
4.6.1.2.d. The specific Action Statement for LCO 3.6.1.2. applies and 
requires that containment integrity to be restored within 1 hour or 
place the plant in hot standby within the next 6 hours, and in cold 
shutdown within the following 30 hours. Since SR 4.6.1.2.d was 
inadvertently missed, SR 4.0.3 was invoked at approximately 1 p.m. on 
September 23, 1994. This SR permits the action requirements to be 
delayed for up to 24 hours to permit the completion of a missed 
surveillance when the allowable outage time limits of the action 
requirements are less than 24 hours. Since the Type C test cannot be 
performed while at power and the Type B tests that have exceeded the 
24-month period cannot be completed within the 24-hour window, 
Millstone Unit 2 would have been forced to shutdown to comply with the 
requirements of the Millstone Unit 2 TS.
    The NRC staff granted orally on September 24, 1994, NNECO's request 
for enforcement discretion associated with Action Statements of LCOs 
3.6.1.1. and 3.6.1.2. to be effective until the proposed amendment 
would be issued. This enforcement discretion was confirmed by the NRC 
letter to NNECO dates September 30, 1994.
    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 amendment 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.
    The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the 
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the 
frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2 
and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage. 
This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate 
until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the next refueling 
outage. This proposal does not modify the maximum allowable leakage 
rate at the calculated peak containment pressure, does not impact 
the design basis of the containment, and does not change the post-
accident containment response.
    On February 8, 1988, NNECO conducted the first Type A test for 
the Millstone Unit No. 2 present 10-year service period. The test 
passed the ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' ILRTs. The ``As-Found'' 
leakage result was 0.201 weight percent per day and the ``As-Left'' 
leakage result was 0.138 weight percent per day. These values 
represent 53.6% of 36.8% of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specification Limit of 0.75 La (0.375 weight percent per day, 
based on an La equal to 0.5 weight percent per day), 
respectively. The second Type A test for the present 10-year service 
period was conducted on December 24, 1992. The ``As-Found'' and 
``As-Left'' ILRT results were 0.2809 and 0.2577 weight percent per 
day, respectively. This values represent 74.9% and 68.7% of the 
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specification limit of 0.75La 
(0.375 weight percent per day, based on an La equal to 0.5 
weight percent per day). In addition, as of December 1992, the total 
Type B and C ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' leakage results were 0.049 
and 0.008 weight percent per day, respectively. These values 
represent 16.3% and 2.7% of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specification limit of 0.6 La (0.3 weight percent per day, 
based on an La equal to 0.5 weight percent per day), 
respectively. The results of these tests demonstrate that Millstone 
Unit No. 2 has maintained control of containment integrity by 
maintaining a conservative margin between the acceptance criterion 
and the ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' leakage rates.
    During the past two refueling outages, there have been few 
failures of penetrations/values to pass their LLRTs. During the 1992 
and 1990 refueling outages, there were a total of five failures 
(four in 1992 and one in 1990) of penetrations/valves to pass their 
LLRTs. Of these failures, only one (penetration 23/72 with valves 
MS-191B and MS-220B) was a repeat failure. This penetration was 
tested successfully approximately five months ago.
    During Cycle 12, maintenance has been performed on several 
penetrations/valves. Their operability has been assured by the 
performance of post-maintenance LLRTs which demonstrated that the 
leakage from the penetrations/valves were within their acceptance 
criteria.
    Additionally, the 48 Type B penetrations (electrical) and 21 
Type C penetrations (valves) that are currently outside of the 24 
month interval have each passed their last two ``As-Found'' tests, 
as a minimum. These results indicate that the penetration/valves are 
reliable.
    Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance 
Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specifications does not involve a significant 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 change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d of the 
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the 
frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2 
and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage. 
This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate 
until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the next refueling 
outage. This proposal does not make any physical or operational 
changes to existing plant structures, systems, or components, does 
not modify the maximum allowable leakage rate at the calculated peak 
containment pressure, does not impact the design basis of the 
containment, and does not change the post-accident containment 
response.
    In addition, the proposed changes do not modify the acceptance 
criteria for the Type A, B, or C tests. Maintaining the leakage 
through the containment boundary to the atmosphere within a specific 
value ensures that the plant complies with the requirements of 
10CFR100. The containment boundary serves as an accident mitigator; 
it is not an accident initiator.
    Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance 
Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specifications 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 proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the 
Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the 
frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2 
and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage. 
This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate 
until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the twelfth 
refueling outage. This proposal does not make any physical or 
operational changes to existing plant structures, systems, or 
components, does not modify the containment pressure, does not 
impact the design basis of the containment, and does not change the 
post-accident containment response.
    Additionally, the past Type A, B, and C tests have demonstrated 
the leak-tightness of the containment and the reliability of the 
penetrations/valves.
    Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance 
Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical 
Specifications 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 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 November 14, 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 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 signficant 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 Phillip F. McKee, 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 Ms. L. M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, 
Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post Office Box 270, Hartford, CT 
06141-0270, 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 26, 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 5th day of October 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. 94-25302 Filed 10-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M