[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 202 (Thursday, October 17, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54242-54244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26588]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-245]


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-21 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO/the licensee) 
for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 located in 
Waterford, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would modify the applicability requirements 
for certain radiation monitors so that the radiation monitors are 
required to be operable only when secondary containment integrity is 
required to be operable; delineate when secondary containment integrity 
is required; modify standby gas treatment operability requirements; 
make editorial corrections to clarify the configuration of the 
radiation monitors; and revise the associated Bases sections.
    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:

    Pursuant to 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes 
and concludes that the changes do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration (SHC) since the proposed change satisfies 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 evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not significantly increase the 
probability of an accident since these changes only affect 
operability of equipment used for either identifying or mitigating 
accident conditions and have no impact on any initiating events for 
analyzed accidents previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.2.E makes the 
operability requirements of the radiation monitors consistent with 
operability requirements of the systems they automatically actuate 
and the Standard Technical Specifications NUREG-1433 (Rev 1) 
operability requirements for these monitors. The safety function of 
these radiation monitors is to monitor the reactor building and the 
steam tunnel ventilation exhaust plenums, and the room air at the 
refueling floor area to provide prompt indication of a gross release 
of radioactive material and, if setpoints are exceeded, actuate 
logic which initiates standby gas treatment and isolates normal 
ventilation. Conditions which could produce significant radiological 
releases and necessitate isolation of the reactor building and steam 
tunnel ventilation systems and initiation of the standby gas 
treatment system are only permitted to be established when secondary 
containment integrity is required. Administrative controls are 
established to ensure that secondary containment integrity is 
maintained when required to mitigate radiological consequences of 
postulated accidents. Proper application of procedural 
administrative controls ensure that evolutions, which may result in 
significant release of fission products, (including those not 
specifically delineated in the proposed technical specification) are 
evaluated to determine if secondary containment is required. When 
secondary containment integrity is not required, the plant is 
prohibited from performing activities which may result in a 
significant radiological release and the potential for an analyzed 
radiological accident is minimized. Therefore, the need for these 
radiation monitors to be operable at all times, including those 
instance when either secondary containment integrity or operability 
of the standby gas treatment system are not required provides no 
additional safety benefit and can be eliminated.
    The proposed changes also ensure the requirements for the 
radiation monitors (Section 3.2.E), standby gas treatment system 
(Section 3.7.B), and secondary containment integrity (Section 3.7.C) 
are consistent.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specification 3.7.B, 
``Standby Gas Treatment System,'' ensure standby gas treatment 
system operability is required whenever secondary containment 
integrity is required and ensures the operability requirements for 
the standby gas treatment system are specified for activities which 
have a potential of significant release of fission products. It 
maintains the requirement that standby gas treatment system 
operability is required whenever secondary containment integrity is 
not required. If secondary containment integrity cannot be 
maintained, activities which have the potential of a significant 
radiological release are immediately suspended and conditions 
established within 24 hours in which secondary containment integrity 
is no longer required. Requiring both trains of standby gas 
treatment system and three power sources (either two onsite and one 
offsite or one onsite and two offsite) provides adequate AC 
electrical power during a REFUELING OUTAGE. The operability 
requirements for the standby gas treatment system and power supplies 
remain unaltered for the fuel handling accident, the design bases 
accident during a REFUELING OUTAGE. Therefore, the consequences of 
the fuel handling accident, as analyzed, remain unaffected and the 
other less limiting transients remain bounded.
    Currently, secondary containment integrity is required even when 
fuel is removed from the vessel if the control rods are not fully 
inserted. This requirement is not necessary for safety and can be 
eliminated. The proposed LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION results in 
some cases where secondary containment is not required when it would 
have been previously (e.g., mode switch in REFUEL with no fuel 
movement or withdrawing a single control rod with the vessel head 
installed). However, none of these cases would place the plant in a 
condition which would result in a significant radiological release 
requiring secondary containment or standby gas treatment system

[[Page 54243]]

to mitigate the release. For example, with the mode switch in REFUEL 
the refueling interlocks would permit a single control rod to be 
withdrawn with the vessel head installed. The core design ensures 
that the reactor remains subcritical with the highest control rod 
worth withdrawn, therefore, a subcritical reactor with the vessel 
head installed has no potential for a significant radiological 
release.
    Therefore, the proposed changes will not significantly increase 
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 changes do not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident since these changes only affect 
operability requirements for equipment used either to identify or 
mitigate accident conditions and have no impact on any initiating 
events which could result in a new or different kind of accident 
from accidents previously evaluated.
    None of these changes affect precursor events which could lead 
to a new or different kind of accident and therefore, these changes 
will 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 margin of safety provided by the existing technical 
specifications is not significantly reduced by the proposed changes. 
While the radiation monitor applicability requirements are being 
reduced, the radiation monitors, standby gas treatment system and 
secondary containment will continue to remain operable during 
conditions in which there is a potential for gross release of 
fission products. The proposed changes are consistent with the 
requirements for the standby gas treatment system initiation and the 
secondary containment isolations which are activated by these 
radiation monitors. There are no accidents postulated which 
necessitate the use of these radiation monitors when plant 
conditions do not require secondary containment integrity to be 
operable. Conservatism is added in the requirements for secondary 
containment integrity and an additional LIMITING CONDITION FOR 
OPERATION is provided to address the condition when secondary 
containment integrity cannot be met.
    Therefore, these changes do 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 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 Chief, 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 November 18, 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

[[Page 54244]]

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 Gerald 
Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, 
Hartford, CT, 06103-3499, 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 August 29, 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 10th day of October.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Andersen,
Project Manager, Northeast Utilities Project Directorate, Division of 
Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-26588 Filed 10-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P