[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30639-30641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15256]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-423]
Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.; 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.
NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (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) for the Overtemperature delta T time constants in TS Table 2.2-1
and the Steam Line Pressure Negative Rate High Steam Line Isolation
time constant on TS Table 3.3-4.
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:
The proposed changes do not involve a [significant hazards
consideration] SHC because the changes would not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification changes will revise the
mathematical notations associated with the time constants in Tables
2.2-1 and 3.3-4. The proposed changes do not modify the value of any
time constant.
The proposed changes to Table 2.2-1 will replace the current
equalities with inequalities in order to indicate the direction of
conservatism for the time constants 1,
2, 4, 5 and
7. These time constants are used
[[Page 30640]]
in Note 1 and Note 3 for the Overtemperature [delta] T and Overpower
[delta] T trips.
The proposed change to Table 3.3-4 will revise the direction of
the inequality from ``less than or equal to'' to ``greater than or
equal to'' in order to indicate the correct direction of
conservatism for the time constant for the rate-lag controller for
the Steam Line Pressure-Negative Rate-High trip.
The proposed changes will modify the setpoint calibration of
plant instrumentation in a manner that is consistent with the
Millstone Unit No. 3 setpoints analysis since the time constants
will be treated as limits with a direction of conservatism. Based on
the nature of the change, there is no effect on the probability of
occurrence of previously evaluated accidents.
The changes noted above related to the time constants in Tables
2.2-1 are intended to indicate that the associated time constants
are limiting values. The correction to the inequality in Table 3.3-4
is made to indicate the correct direction of conservatism for this
time constant. The treatment of the time constants as limiting
values and the correction to Table 3.3-4 are consistent with the
setpoints analysis for Millstone Unit No. 3. No changes are made to
the specific time constant values. Therefore, the changes will not
increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Thus, the proposed changes will 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 accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification changes will revise the
mathematical notations associated with the time constants in Tables
2.2-1 and 3.3-4. The proposed changes do not modify the value of any
time constant.
The proposed changes to Table 2.2-1 will replace the current
equalities with inequalities in order to indicate the direction of
conservatism for the time constants 1,
2, 4, 5 and
7. These time constants are used in Note 1 and Note 3
for the Overtemperature [delta] T and Overpower [delta] T trips.
The proposed change to Table 3.3-4 will revise the direction of
the inequality from ``less than or equal to'' to ``greater than or
equal to'' in order to indicate the correct direction of
conservatism for the time constant for the rate-lag controller for
the Steam Line Pressure-Negative Rate-High trip.
The proposed changes, regarding the treatment of time constants
as limits, will modify the operation of plant equipment,
specifically the Reactor Trip System and engineered safety features
actuation system trips noted above. However, these changes regarding
the treatment of time constants are consistent with the existing
Millstone Unit No. 3 setpoints analysis.
Based on the nature of the changes, the changes do not introduce
any new failure modes or malfunctions and do not create the
potential for a new unanalyzed accident. Thus, the proposed changes
do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed Technical Specification changes will revise the
mathematical notations associated with the time constants in Tables
2.2-1 and 3.3-4. The proposed changes do not modify the value of any
time constant.
The proposed changes to Table 2.2-1 will replace the current
equalities with inequalities in order to indicate the direction of
conservatism for the time constants 1,
2, 4, 5 and
7. These time constants are used in Note 1 and Note 3
for the Overtemperature [delta] T and Overpower [delta] T trips.
The proposed change to Table 3.3-4 will revise the direction of
the inequality from ``less than or equal to'' to ``greater than or
equal to'' in order to indicate the correct direction of
conservatism for the time constant for the rate-lag controller for
the Steam Line Pressure-Negative Rate-High trip.
The proposed changes to Technical Specification Tables 2.2-1 and
3.3-4 will ensure that the associated time constants will be
calibrated in a manner that is consistent with the Millstone Unit
No. 3 setpoints analysis since the time constants will be treated as
limits with a direction of conservatism. Therefore, based on the
nature of the changes, there is no adverse effect on the results of
the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] accident analysis and it is
concluded that these changes are safe. Additionally, the changes do
not adversely effect any equipment credited in the safety analysis
and do not effect the probability of occurrence of any plant
accident.
The changes do not have any significant impact on the protective
boundaries and there is no reduction in the margin of safety as
specified in the Technical Specifications. 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 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 20555-0001, 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 July 17, 1996, 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,
Connecticut, and the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope
Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut. 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.
[[Page 30641]]
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 20555-0001, 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 20555-0001, 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 May 23, 1996, 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,
Connecticut, and the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope
Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of June 1996.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Maudette Griggs,
Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project Directorate, Division of
Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-15256 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P