[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 120 (Thursday, June 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31558-31561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15730]



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

[[Page 31559]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket No. 50-243


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, et al. (the 
licensee) for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 
No. 3 located in New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications (TS) 
Table 3.3-1 to allow Millstone Unit No. 3 to change operational modes 
with both Shutdown Margin Monitors inoperable, and to revise Action 
Statements 5(a) and 5(b) to reference the locked valve list in TS 
4.1.1.2.2.
    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 changes to Technical Specification 3.3.1, Table 
3.3-1, Action 5(b) would allow Millstone Unit No. 3 to change Modes 
with the Shutdown Margin Monitors (SMMs) inoperable while in 
compliance with the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) governing 
this condition.
    The SMMs are used only for the purpose of providing an alarm to 
allow the operator time to mitigate a boron dilution accident.
    The LCO action to lock all dilution flow paths provides adequate 
protection to preclude a boron dilution event from occurring. The 
administrative controls placed upon the dilution flow paths per 
Technical Specification 4.1.1.2.2 are the basis for not having to 
analyze for a BDE in Mode 6. Consequently, the SMMs are not required 
to be operable in Mode 6.
    With the dilution flow paths locked closed, the SMMs are not 
required to provide an alarm to the operators to allow them to 
mitigate the event, and their continued operation provides no added 
safety benefit. The LCO for both SMMs being inoperable does not 
require the plant to change Modes and therefore permits continued 
operation of the facility for an unlimited period of time. The 
proposed Technical Specification change will allow the plant to 
invoke Technical Specification 3.0.4 and increase modes while 
complying with the LCO action statements. These action statements 
are summarized below:
    Positive reactivity operations via dilutions and rod withdrawal 
are suspended. The intent of this action is to stop any planned 
dilutions of the RCS [reactor coolant system]. The SMMs are not 
intended to monitor core reactivity associated with RCS temperature 
changes. The alarm set point is routinely re-set during the plant 
heat up due to the increasing count rate. During cooldowns as the 
count rate decreases, baseline count rates are continually lowered 
automatically by the SMMs. The Millstone Unit No. 3 boron dilution 
analysis assumes steady state RCS temperature operation. Plant cool 
downs, although considered positive reactivity additions, are 
allowed to be performed with the SMMs inoperable as the SMMs provide 
no protection during an RCS cool down. The SMMs are designed to 
monitor for dilution events, not reactivity additions as a result of 
cool downs. Prohibiting an RCS cool down as a result of entrance 
into this LCO action statement could prevent the operator from 
placing the plant into an overall safer condition. As such, all RCS 
cool downs will be allowed when the plant has entered this action 
statement in an effort to place the plant in a safer condition. With 
the administrative controls placed on the dilution flow paths, the 
BDE [boron dilution event] is precluded and the effects of the cool 
down are normal, anticipated core reactivity changes are offset by 
higher RCS boron concentrations.
    All dilution flow paths are isolated and placed under 
administrative control (locked closed). This action provides 
redundant protection and defense in depth (safety overlap) to the 
SMMs. In this configuration, a BDE cannot occur. This is the basis 
for not having to analyze for a BDE in Mode 6. Since the BDE cannot 
occur with the dilution flow paths isolated, the SMMs are not 
required to be operable as the event cannot occur and operable SMMs 
provide no benefit.
    Increase the shutdown margin surveillance frequency from every 
24 hours to every 12 hours. This action, in combination with the 
above, provides defense in depth and overlap to the loss of the 
SMMs.
    It is concluded that Millstones Unit No. 3 can heat up from Mode 
5 to Mode 3 while complying with the technical specification action 
statements of Technical Specification 3.3.1, Table 3.3-1, safely and 
without increasing the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    Thus, this proposed change 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 change will allow Millstone Unit No. 3 to change 
modes while complying with the LCO action statements. These action 
statements provide adequate protection to preclude a BDE from 
occurring. Changing Modes without the SMM OPERABLE will not create a 
new or different accident from any previously analyzed. The SMMs are 
used solely for the purpose of detecting a BDE by providing the 
operator with 15 minutes of mitigation response time. With the event 
precluded, (the dilution flow paths locked closed) the SMMs provide 
no additional safety benefit while in operation. Since their only 
function is to provide a 15 minute response time, their inoperablity 
[cannot] create the possibility of a different accident from 
occurring.
    Based on the nature of the change, the change does not introduce 
any new failure modes or malfunctions and it does not create the 
potential for a new unanalyzed accident. Thus, this proposed change 
does 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 change does not reduce the 
margin of safety. The proposed change will allow Millstone Unit No. 
3 to increase Modes without the SMMs OPERABLE. However the plant 
would only perform the Mode increase with Technical Specification 
administrative controls in place that essentially preclude that 
accident from occurring. In the proposed plant configuration, there 
is no added safety benefit from having the SMMs OPERABLE during the 
Mode increase. As such, there is no reduction in the margin of 
safety.
    Thus, this proposed change does 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.

[[Page 31560]]

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 22, 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.
    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

[[Page 31561]]

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 3, 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 11th day of June 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vernon L. Rooney,
Senior Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project Directorate, 
Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-15730 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P