[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11092-11094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4884]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-423]


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 Nos. 
NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company for operation of the 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 (Millstone 3) located in 
New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment request dated February 1, 2000, would revise 
limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) 3.0.1 and 3.0.2 and add LCO 
3.0.5 to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Millstone 3. LCO 3.0.5 
establishes allowances for restoring equipment to service under 
administrative controls when the equipment has been removed from 
service or declared inoperable to comply with actions in the TS. LCOs 
3.0.1 and 3.0.2 would be revised by adding an exception that states 
``except as provided in Specification 3.0.5.'' The Bases to the TS 
would also be changed.
    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

[[Page 11093]]

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:

    1. [The proposed amendment does not] involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    The addition of Technical Specification 3.0.5 allows restoration 
of equipment to service under administrative controls when it has 
been removed from service or declared inoperable to comply with 
action requirements [of the TS]. The potential impact of temporarily 
returning the equipment to service is considered to be insignificant 
since the equipment has been restored to a condition which is 
expected to provide the required safety function. As stated in 
Generic Letter 87-09, ``The vast majority of surveillances do in 
fact demonstrate that systems or components are operable.'' Also, 
returning the equipment to service for testing will promote timely 
restoration of the equipment and reduce the probability of events 
that may have been prevented or mitigated by such operable 
equipment. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    Since the equipment to be restored is already out of service, 
the availability of the equipment has been previously considered in 
the evaluation of consequences of an accident. Temporarily returning 
the equipment to service in a state [in] which [the equipment] is 
expected to function as required to mitigate the consequences of a 
previously analyzed accident will promote timely restoration of the 
equipment and restore the capabilities of the equipment to mitigate 
the consequences of any events previously analyzed. Therefore, the 
proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. [The proposed amendment does not] create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes do not introduce a new mode of plant 
operation and do not involve [a] physical modification to the plant. 
Operation with the inoperable equipment temporarily restored to 
service is not considered a new mode of operation since existing 
procedures and administrative controls prevent the restoration of 
equipment to service until it is considered capable of providing the 
required safety functions.
    Performance of the surveillance is considered to be a 
confirmatory check of that capability which demonstrates that the 
equipment is indeed operable in the majority of the cases. For those 
times when equipment which may be temporarily returned to service 
under administrative controls is subsequently determined to be 
inoperable the resulting condition is comparable to the equipment 
having been determined to be inoperable during operation, with 
continued operation for a specified time allowed to complete 
required actions. Since this condition has been previously evaluated 
in the development of the current Technical Specifications, the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated is not created.
    3. [The proposed amendment does not] involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    Temporarily returning [previously declared] inoperable equipment 
to service for the purpose of confirming operability, places the 
plant in a condition which has been previously evaluated and 
determined to be acceptable for short periods. Additionally, the 
equipment has been determined to be in a condition which provides 
the previously determined margin of safety. The performance of the 
surveillance simply confirms the expected result and capability of 
the equipment. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in a 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 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 March 31, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room). 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

[[Page 11094]]

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, 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 February 1, 2000, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of February 2000.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James W. Clifford,
Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-4884 Filed 2-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P