[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2523-2525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-829]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]


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. 
DPR-65 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al. (the 
licensee, or NNECO), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit No. 2, located in Waterford, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specifications (TSs) 
3.5.2, ``Emergency Core Cooling Systems--ECCS Subsystems--Tavg [greater 
than or equal to] 300 [degrees Fahrenheit];'' 3.6.2.1, ``Containment 
Systems--Depressurization and Cooling Systems--Containment Spray and 
Cooling Systems;'' 3.7.1.2, ``Plant Systems--Auxiliary Feedwater 
Pumps;'' 3.7.3.1, ``Plant Systems--Reactor Building Closed Cooling 
Water System;'' and 3.7.4.1, ``Plant Systems--Service Water System.'' 
Changes to the acceptance criteria contained in these TSs are necessary 
based on revised hydraulic analyses and related accident analyses. 
Also, the bases of the associated TSs will be modified to address the 
proposed changes.
    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:

    In accordance with 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the proposed 
changes and has concluded that they do not involve a significant 
hazards consideration (SHC). The basis for this conclusion is that 
the three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised. The 
proposed changes do not involve an SHC because the changes would 
not:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes to the acceptance criteria of the Technical 
Specification surveillance requirements for various Engineered 
Safety Features (ESF) pumps are consistent with the hydraulic and 
accident analyses. The revised acceptance criteria will ensure that 
pump degradation, which could adversely impact the accident 
analyses, will be detected.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specification surveillance 
requirements and associated Bases will have no adverse effect on 
plant operation or accident mitigation equipment. The proposed 
changes can not cause an accident, and they do not affect pump 
operation. The pumps will continue to operate as assumed in the 
analyses to mitigate the design basis accidents. Therefore, there 
will be no 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 changes to the acceptance criteria of the Technical 
Specification surveillance requirements for various ESF pumps are 
consistent with the hydraulic and accident analyses. The revised 
acceptance criteria will ensure that pump degradation, which could 
adversely impact the accident analyses, will be detected.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specification surveillance 
requirements and associated Bases will not affect the way the pumps 
are operated during normal plant operations, or how the pumps will 
operate after an accident. In addition, ESF pump operation is not an 
accident initiator. Therefore, the proposed 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 proposed changes to the acceptance criteria of the Technical 
Specification surveillance requirements for various ESF pumps are 
consistent with the hydraulic and accident analyses. The revised 
acceptance criteria will ensure that pump degradation, which could 
adversely impact the accident analyses, will be detected.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specification surveillance 
requirements and associated Bases will have no adverse effect on 
equipment important to safety. The equipment will continue to 
function as assumed in the design basis accident analysis. 
Therefore, there will be no significant reduction in the margin of 
safety as defined in the Bases for the Technical Specifications 
affected by these proposed changes.
    The NRC has provided guidance concerning the application of 
standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6, 
1986, 51 FR 7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to 
involve an SHC. The minor change from ``psi'' [pounds per square 
inch] to ``psid'' [pounds per square inch differential] is enveloped 
by example (i), a purely administrative change to Technical 
Specifications. The other changes proposed herein are not enveloped 
by a specific example.
    As described above, this License Amendment Request does not 
impact the probability of an accident previously evaluated, does not 
involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, 
and does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety. Therefore, NNECO has concluded that the proposed changes do 
not involve an SHC.

    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

[[Page 2524]]

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 February 16, 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 room located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers 
Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, 
Connecticut, or the Waterford Public 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 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

[[Page 2525]]

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 January 4, 1999, 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 Public Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 
Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of January 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stephen Dembek,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-829 Filed 1-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P