[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71657-71659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34439]


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

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 (the licensee) for 
operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, located in 
Waterford, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would change the technical specifications 
for staffing and training requirements to allow the use of Certified 
Fuel Handlers to meet plant staffing requirements.
    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:

    A review of the proposed changes has determined that there is no 
Unreviewed Safety Question. The proposed change to the Technical 
Specifications has been evaluated against the standards of 10 CFR 
50.92 and has been determined to not involve a significant hazards 
consideration. The proposed change does not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
    The purpose of this proposed change is to eliminate the 
requirements for licensed operators and a licensed operator training 
program and to replace those with certified fuel handlers and a 
certified fuel handler training and retraining program. The plant 
has permanently ceased operation and will be maintained in a 
defueled condition. The range of accidents for which an operator 
needs to be trained has significantly diminished. The only credible 
design basis accident is a Fuel Handling Accident. As such, a 
training program of the depth and breadth of that required by 10 CFR 
Part 55 is no longer needed. In lieu of a 10 CFR Part 55 licensed 
operator training program, an NRC approved certified fuel handler 
training and retraining program will be implemented. This training 
program will adequately equip appropriate operations personnel for 
fuel handling operations, including responses to abnormal events/
accidents. In addition, the requirements are being changed to ensure 
that an individual qualified in radiation protection procedures is 
onsite during fuel handling operations. Therefore, there will be no 
increase in the probability of occurrence or in the consequences of 
events associated with fuel handling activities. The proposed 
changes do not affect plant equipment or procedures for equipment 
operation or response to abnormal events/accidents in the defueled 
condition.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    The purpose of this proposed change is to eliminate the 
requirements for licensed operators and a licensed operator training 
program and to replace those with certified fuel handlers and a 
certified fuel handler training and retraining program. The changes 
ensure that the qualifications of operations personnel are 
commensurate with the tasks to be performed for normal and/or 
abnormal conditions that could occur in the defueled condition. In 
addition, the requirements are being changed to ensure that an 
individual qualified in radiation protection procedures is onsite 
during fuel handling operations. These changes do not affect plant 
equipment or the procedures for operating plant equipment, and 
therefore, 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 purpose of this proposed change is to eliminate the 
requirements for licensed operators and a licensed operator training 
program and to replace those with certified fuel handlers and a 
certified fuel handler training and retraining program. The changes 
ensure that the qualifications of operations personnel are 
commensurate with the tasks to be performed for normal and/or 
abnormal conditions that could occur in the defueled condition. In 
addition, the requirements are being changed to ensure that an 
individual qualified in radiation protection procedures is onsite 
during fuel handling operations. The assumptions for a fuel handling 
accident in the Reactor Building are not affected by the proposed 
changes. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction 
in a margin of safety.


[[Page 71658]]


NNECO has concluded that the proposed changes to the Millstone Unit 
No. 1 Technical Specifications do not involve a significant hazards 
consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92.

    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 and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 January 28, 1999, 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 rooms located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers 
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, 
Connecticut 06360, 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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. 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

[[Page 71659]]

Lillian M. Cuoco, Esq., Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities 
Service Company, P.O. Box 270, Hartford, Connecticut, 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 December 4, 1998, 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 rooms located at the Learning Resources Center, Three 
Rivers Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, 
Connecticut 06360, and the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Louis L. Wheeler,
Senior Project Manager, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project 
Directorate, Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-34439 Filed 12-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P