[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 7, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48672-48675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23157]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423]


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 or NRC) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or the 
licensee) for operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 
(MP3), located in New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
1.40, ``Spent Fuel Pool Storage Pattern''; 1.1, ``3-OUT-OF-4 AND 4-OUT-
OF-4''; 3/4.9.1.2, ``Boron Concentration''; 3/4.9.7, ``Crane Travel--
Spent Fuel Storage Areas''; 3/4.9.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity''; 
3.9.14, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage Pattern''; 5.6.1.1, ``Design 
Features--Criticality''; and 5.6.3, ``Design Features--Capacity.'' In 
addition, the proposed amendment would replace figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2 
with 4 new figures and make changes to the TS Bases consistent with 
changes to their respective TS sections. These changes are being made 
to support the proposed increase in the capacity of the spent fuel pool 
at MP3 from 756 assemblies to 1,860 assemblies (an increase of 1,104).
    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:


[[Page 48673]]


    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 a significant hazard because they 
would not;

2.1  Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    In the analysis of safety issues concerning the expanded pool 
storage capacity, NNECO has considered the following potential 
accident scenarios;
    a. A spent fuel assembly drop with control rod and handling tool
    b. A fuel pool gate drop
    c. Potential damage due to a seismic event
    d. Fuel assembly misloading/drop or pool temperature exceeding 
160 deg.F
    e. An accidental drop of a rack module during installation 
activity in the pool
    The probability that any of the first four accidents in the 
above list can occur is not significantly increased by the 
modification itself. All work in the pool area will be controlled 
and performed in strict accordance with specific written procedures. 
As for an installation accident, safe load paths will be established 
that will prevent heavy loads from being transported over the spent 
fuel. Proper functioning of the cranes will be checked and verified 
before rack installation, and appropriate administrative controls 
imposed. All lift rigging and the crane/hoist system will be 
verified to comply with applicable plant and site procedures. All 
heavy lifts will be performed in accordance with established station 
procedures, which will comply with NUREG-0612, ``Control of Heavy 
Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.'' These actions will minimize the 
possibility of a heavy load drop accident. Fuel assembly handling 
procedures and techniques are not affected by adding spent fuel 
racks, and the probability of a fuel handling accident or misloading 
is not increased.
    Accordingly, the proposed modification does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    NNECO has evaluated the consequences of an accidental drop of a 
fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool. The results show that such an 
accident will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their 
functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin, keff 
less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained. The radiological 
consequences of a fuel assembly drop are not increased from the 
existing postulated fuel drop accident in Millstone Unit No. 3 FSAR 
[Final Safety Analysis Report] Section 15.7.4. Thus, the 
consequences of such an accident remain acceptable, and are not 
different from any previously evaluated accidents that the NRC has 
reviewed and accepted.
    The consequences of an accidental drop of a fuel pool gate onto 
racks has been evaluated. The results show that such an accident 
will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their 
functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin, keff 
less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained. In addition, the 
Technical Specifications do not allow fuel to be under a fuel pool 
gate when one is moved. The analysis indicates no radiological 
consequences from this postulated accident. Thus, the consequences 
of such an accident remain acceptable, and are not different from 
any previously evaluated accidents that he NRC has reviewed and 
accepted.
    The consequences of a design basis seismic event have been 
evaluated and found acceptable. The proposed additional racks and 
existing racks have been analyzed in their new configuration and 
found safe and impact-free during seismic motion, save for the 
baseplate-to-baseplate impacts of the proposed additional racks 
which are shown to cause no damage to the racks[,] cells[,] or 
Boral. The structural capability of the pool walls and basemat will 
not be exceeded under the loads. Thus, the consequences of a seismic 
event are not significantly increased.
    The consequences of a misloading/drop of a fuel assembly during 
fuel movement have been evaluated. The minimum subcriticality 
margin, keff less than or equal to 0.95, will continue to 
be maintained because of the proposed pool water soluble boron 
related requirements. Thus, the consequences of such an accident 
remain acceptable, and are not different from any previously 
evaluated accidents that the NRC has reviewed and accepted.
    The consequences of an accidental drop of a rack module into the 
pool during placement have been evaluated. The analysis confirmed 
that very limited damage to the liner could occur, which is 
repairable. Any small seepage occurring is well within makeup 
capability, and is mitigated by emergency operating procedures. All 
movements of racks over the pool will comply with the applicable 
guidelines. Therefore, the consequences of an installation accident 
are not increased from any previously evaluated accident.
    The consequences of a spent fuel cask drop into the pool have 
not been considered in this submittal since NNECO is not currently 
licensed to move a fuel cask into the Millstone Unit No. 3 cask pit 
area.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes to the 
Technical Specifications and licensing basis for Millstone Unit No. 
3 do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of 
any accident previously evaluated.

2.2  Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any previously analyzed.

    The proposed change does not alter the operating requirements of 
the plant or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the 
design basis accidents. Therefore, the potential for an unanalyzed 
accident is not created. The postulated failure modes associated 
with the change do not significantly decrease the coolability, 
criticality margin, or structural integrity of the spent fuel in the 
pool. The resulting structural, thermal, and seismic loads are 
acceptable.
    Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

2.3  Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The function of the spent fuel pool is to store the fuel 
assemblies in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all 
environmental and abnormal loadings, such as an earthquake, fuel 
assembly drop, fuel pool gate drop, or drop of another heavy object. 
The new rack design must meet all applicable requirements for safe 
storage and be functionally compatible with the other rack design in 
the spent fuel pool.
    NNECO has addressed the safety issues related to the expanded 
pool storage capacity in the following areas:

1. Material, mechanical, and structural considerations
2. Nuclear criticality
3. Thermal-hydraulic and pool cooling

    The mechanical, material, and structural designs of the new 
racks have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable 
provisions of NRC ``OT Position for the Review and Acceptance of 
Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications'', April 14, 1978, as 
amended January 18, 1979. The rack materials used are compatible 
with the spent fuel assemblies and the spent fuel pool environment. 
The design of the new racks preserves the proper margin of safety 
during abnormal loads such as a dropped fuel assembly, a postulated 
seismic event, a dropped fuel pool gate, and tensile loads from a 
stuck fuel assembly. It has been shown that such loads will not 
invalidate the mechanical design and material selection to safely 
store fuel in a coolable and subcritical configuration. Also, it has 
been shown that the pool structure will maintain its integrity and 
function during normal operation, all postulated accident sequences, 
and postulated seismic events.
    The methodology used in the criticality analysis of the expanded 
spent fuel pool storage capacity meets the appropriate NRC 
guidelines and the ANSI [American National Standards Institute] 
standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is determined by 
a neutron multiplication factor less than or equal to 0.95 under all 
accident conditions, including uncertainties. This criterion has 
been preserved in all analyzed accidents and seismic events.
    The special circumstances regarding transitioning to the revised 
[T]echnical [S]pecifications was discussed. At present, NNECO 
estimates that there will be approximately 120 fuel assemblies 
stored in existing racks that will not meet the burnup/enrichment 
requirements for storage in these racks under the proposed Technical 
Specifications. During the actual reracking effort, including 
transfer of these assemblies from existing racks to Region 1 and 2 
racks, existing soluble boron and Boraflex related requirements and 
surveillances will continue to be enforced. Also, when transferring 
these assemblies to Region 1 and 2 racks, the burnup/enrichment 
requirements of these racks will be enforced. After fuel transfer is 
complete, the revised Technical Specifications will be fully 
implemented. These requirements ensure that the neutron 
multiplication factor will remain less than or equal to 0.95 during 
the whole period of the rerack.

[[Page 48674]]

    The rerack thermal hydraulic analysis is based on NNECO's 
January 18, 1999, submittal analysis which bound the heat load of 
this licensing amendment request. The rerack thermal hydraulic 
analysis found that, in the blocked hottest stored assembly, the 
local peak water temperature will remain below boiling, and the fuel 
clad will not experience high temperatures.
    Regarding Technical Specification Surveillance 4.9.7, since the 
proposed change continues to meet the requirements of Technical 
Specification 3.9.7, that is it prohibits a crane from carrying a 
load greater that 2,200 lbs [pounds] over fuel in the spent fuel 
pool to preclude fuel damage, the margin of safety is maintained.
    Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes to the Technical 
Specifications and licensing basis of Millstone Unit No. 3 do not 
involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety at Millstone 
Unit No. 3.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based upon 
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.
    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 October 7, 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 such 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 that 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, and 
the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, 
Waterford, Connecticut. If a request for a hearing and 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 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 to 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

[[Page 48675]]

hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a for a hearing and 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 Ms. Lillian M. 
Cuoco, Esquire, 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 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    Pursuant to the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR 2.1107, the 
Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an 
application for a license amendment falling within the scope of section 
134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. 
Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of any 
party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with 
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in 
controversy among the parties.''
    The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on 
matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's 
rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual 
issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with 
any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those 
issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing 
after oral argument.
    The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are 
found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for 
Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power 
Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under 
those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing 
procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for 
oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be 
filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing 
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely 
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely 
request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the 
requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing 
the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If 
the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing 
held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid 
hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time 
available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to 
determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory 
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument, 
and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the 
usual procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G apply.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated March 19, 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 rooms 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.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of August, 1999.
James W. Clifford,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-23157 Filed 9-3-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P