[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