[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53812-53814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-25659]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; Notice of 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 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) 3.8.1.1, ``A.C SOURCES,'' by adding a footnote that, for Cycle 13 
operation only, to extend the allowed outage time (AOT) of the offsite 
power source obtained from Millstone Unit 1 from 3 days to 7 days.
    This proposed amendment is needed to avert an unnecessary Unit 2 
shutdown should offsite power obtained from Unit 1 become unavailable 
for more than 72 hours when maintenance is performed on the Unit 1 
Reserve Station Service Transformer (RSST) and cross-tie 14H bus during 
the upcoming Unit 1 outage.
    The Unit 1 outage is currently scheduled to begin October 27, 1995, 
and work on the relevant electrical cross-tie equipment is scheduled to 
start on or about November 5, 1995. The licensee will take every effort 
to restore the Unit 1 electrical cross-tie equipment as soon as 
maintenance is completed. Since the completion time for this 

[[Page 53813]]
maintenance activity cannot be assured, the licensee is requesting a 
license amendment change to extend the AOT beyond the present 72 hours. 
Exigent action is justified in order to avoid an unnecessary delay in 
reactor startup.
    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:

    * * * NNECO concludes that these changes do not involve a 
significant hazards consideration since the proposed changes satisfy 
the criteria in 10CFR50.92(c). That is, the proposed changes do not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
    The offsite circuits emergency power system includes equipment 
required to support the safe shutdown and post-accident operations 
of Millstone Unit No. 2. The preferred off-site power supply is from 
the 345-kV switchyard, through the reserve station service 
transformer. The alternate source of off-site power is the 4160V tie 
to Millstone Unit 1 via bus 14H. These offsite circuits are not 
accident initiators. Therefore, this change does not involve an 
increase in the probability of any accident previously evaluated.
    Although the offsite circuits provide power to components that 
help mitigate the consequences of accidents previously evaluated, 
the extension in the AOT does not affect any of the assumptions used 
in the deterministic evaluations of these accidents. Thus, this 
change will not increase the consequences of any accident previously 
analyzed.
    A PRA [probabilistic risk analysis) analysis was performed to 
determine the impact on safety. That analysis examined the increase 
in core damage frequency (CDF) and the core damage probability and 
concluded that the impact is negligible. Further, the extended AOT, 
by itself, does not necessarily increase risk. The increase in the 
risk depends on the total time during which an offsite circuit 
(specifically, the Millstone Unit No. 2 electrical cross-tie from 
Millstone Unit No. 1) is unavailable and the other equipment that is 
concurrently out of service. The total risk increase due to the 
offsite circuit being out-of-service will not be significant since 
that risk increase is monitored and kept at acceptable levels in 
accordance with the risk monitor program.
    Based on the above, the proposal to extend the AOT for one 
offsite circuits [sic] 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 extend the AOT for one offsite circuit 
does not alter the physical design, configuration, or method of 
operation of the plant. Therefore, the proposal 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 extend the AOT for one offsite circuit 
inoperable does not affect the Limiting Conditions for Operations or 
their bases. As a result, the deterministic analyses performed to 
establish the margin of safety are unaffected. Thus, the 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 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By November 16, 1995, 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 and at the local public 
document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers 
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 
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 

[[Page 53814]]
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 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, 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: 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 Lillian M. Cuoco, 
Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service Company, P.O. 
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 October 6, 1995, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC and at the local public 
document room, located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers 
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, CT 
06360.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of October 1995.

    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. 95-25659 Filed 10-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P