[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36583-36585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17653]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]


Northeast Utilities Service 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 Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the 
licensee) for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 
No. 2, located in New London, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment was requested on July 3, 1996, and would 
provide a one-time change to Millstone Unit 2 (MP2) Technical 
Specification 3.9.1, ``Refueling Operations, Boron Concentration.'' The 
proposed change would remove the requirement that the boron 
concentration in all filled portions of the Reactor Coolant System be 
``uniform.'' This change would only be applicable during the MP2 Cycle 
13 mid-cycle core offload. The requested change supersedes the June 3, 
1996, request.
    On March 14, 1996, during surveillance testing, it was discovered 
that a Low Pressure Safety Injection (LPSI) valve could not be closed. 
In order to repair the valve, the Shutdown Cooling System will have to 
be removed from service since it is not possible to isolate flow 
through a stuck open LPSI valve with Shutdown Cooling in operation. The 
repair requires an offload of the core to the Spent Fuel Pool which 
will permit removal of the Shutdown Cooling System from service.
    Since the core offload could not have been anticipated at the time 
of shutdown, the Reactor Coolant System was not borated to the 
refueling concentration required by the Technical Specifications (TSs).
    The proposed one-time TS change would strike the words ``of all 
filled portions'' and ``uniform and'' and add a footnote indicating 
that, for the Cycle 13 mid-cycle core offload activities, it is 
acceptable for the boron concentrations of the water volumes in the 
steam generators and the connecting piping to be as low as 1300 ppm.
    The Bases for 3.9.1 would be modified to explain that the boron 
concentration of the water volumes in the Pressurizer, Shutdown Cooling 
System, Reactor Vessel, Refueling Pool, and the associated connecting 
piping will be maintained at 1950 ppm boron concentration. This 
concentration will be high enough to ensure that, even in the unlikely 
event that all of the lower boron concentration water from the Steam 
Generators and connecting piping were to mix with the Shutdown Cooling 
System water, the resulting Shutdown Cooling System boron concentration 
will remain greater than the minimum required refueling boron 
concentration.
    The initial June 3, 1996, request would have required that the 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) inventory be reduced to mid-loop and 
borate the RCS to greater than 1820 ppm boron to maintain the core at 
least 5% subcritical during refueling. The current request will reduce 
the RCS inventory to a level above mid-loop and borate the RCS to 1950 
ppm to achieve the subcritical conditions.
    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] because the changes would not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
    Refueling Operations Technical Specification 3.9.1 requires 
that, with the reactor vessel head unbolted or removed, the boron 
concentration of all filled portions of the Reactor Coolant System 
and the refueling canal shall be maintained uniform and sufficient 
to ensure that the more restrictive of the following conditions is 
met:
    a. Either a Keff of 0.95 or less, or
    b. A boron concentration of greater than or equal to 1720 ppm
    The proposed technical specification change would strike the 
words ``of all filled portions'' and ``uniform and'' and add a 
footnote indicating that for the Cycle 13 mid-cycle core offload 
activities, it is acceptable for the boron concentrations of the 
water volumes in the steam generators and connecting piping to be as 
low as 1300 ppm. In addition, a surveillance will be added to 
determine that the boron concentration in the steam generators is 
greater than or equal to 1300 ppm prior to entry into Mode 6.
    The impact of the change on the boron dilution accident and the 
loss of shutdown cooling flow has been evaluated. Based upon this 
evaluation, the proposed change to Technical Specification 3.9.1 
does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of these accidents. The probability of a boron dilution 
accident or a loss of shutdown cooling event is not increased by 
allowing the RCS [reactor coolant system] boron concentration in the 
stagnant regions of the RCS to be less than the previously required 
concentration since this is compensated by increasing the boron 
concentration requirement of the shutdown cooling loop in Mode 6. 
The consequences of a boron dilution accident would not be 
increased. In fact, the compensatory measure of increasing the RCS 
boron concentration in the shutdown cooling loops and reactor vessel 
core regions will result in a higher initial boron concentration for 
the boron dilution accident, which would actually increase the time 
to core criticality, ensuring that the operator has at least 30 
minutes to intervene. The consequences of a loss of shutdown cooling 
flow are not increased as the core would continue to remain greater 
than 5% subcritical (assuming all the control element assemblies 
remain inserted) without operator intervention even if the less 
borated water in the stagnant regions of the RCS reached the core 
regions without mixing.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously evaluated.
    By maintaining 1950 ppm in the active region of the RCS, the 
required shutdown margin is assured, even in the unlikely event that 
the stagnant [regions] of the RCS mix with the active regions. Thus, 
the proposed technical specification change would not create the 
possibility of a new or different type of accident than previously 
evaluated. Further, the proposed change has no impact on the 
mitigation of a boron dilution accident or a loss of shutdown 
cooling event.

[[Page 36584]]

    3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    The proposed technical specification change will not result in a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The results of the 
boron dilution accident, and the loss of shutdown cooling event are 
not adversely impacted by the modification to the RCS boration 
technical specification. In the event of a boron dilution accident, 
the operator will continue to have at least 30 minutes to prevent 
core criticality. Without crediting operator intervention, the 
potential core boron reduction associated with a loss of shutdown 
cooling event will not result in core criticality. As such, there is 
no 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 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 August 12, 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

[[Page 36585]]

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 Ms. L. M. 
Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities Services Company, 
Post Office Box 270, Hartford, Connecticut 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 July 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 3rd day of July 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel G. McDonald,
Sr. Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project Directorate, Division 
of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-17653 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P