[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 147 (Monday, July 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46748-46750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19247]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]


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-65 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO/the licensee) 
for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 (MNPS-
2) located in New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specification 
(TSs) and Bases Sections associated with the requirements for the 
Reactor Coolant System (RCS) loops and Shutdown Cooling (SDC) System 
trains during all modes of plant operation. Many of the proposed 
changes are associated with the format and structure of the affected 
TSs and will not result in any technical changes to the current 
requirements. The proposed format changes will result in TSs that are 
clear, concise, and easier for the Control Room operators to use. Some 
of the changes are proposed to achieve consistency with the Standard 
TSs for Combustion Engineering Plants in NUREG-1432, Rev. 1. The Bases 
for the TSs would also be revised to reflect 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:

    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed Technical Specification changes are associated with 
the requirements for the RCS loops and SDC trains during all modes 
of plant operation. These systems provide for the transportation of 
heat from the reactor core to a heat sink. The proposed changes will 
not adversely affect power operation, and will ensure that two 
methods of decay heat removal are available when the plant is shut 
down. These specifications include requirements for various 
equipment, based on plant conditions, and provide appropriate 
actions to take if the required equipment is not available. This 
ensures the equipment necessary to mitigate the design basis 
accidents is available and functioning as assumed, or plant 
operation is limited accordingly.

[[Page 46749]]

    Standardizing the terminology, format, and numbering of the 
Technical Specifications, adding or correcting amendment numbers, 
changing the action statements to be consistent with the proposed 
changes to the LCO [limiting condition for operation], removal of 
extraneous information from various SRs [surveillance requirements], 
and transferring information from the LCO to the associated 
Technical Specification Bases are non-technical changes that will 
not affect any of the current requirements.
    The operation of, and requirements for, the equipment covered by 
the affected Technical Specifications will remain essentially the 
same. In Modes 1 and 2, the proposed requirements are more 
restrictive in that the two RCS loops must be operable in addition 
to being in operation. In Modes 3 (RCS loops) and 4 (RCS loops and 
SDC trains), the requirements remain the same. In Mode 5, the 
requirements will be separated into two specifications based on the 
status of the RCS loops. If the RCS loops are filled, two SDC trains 
will be required unless both steam generators (instead of one) have 
sufficient inventory. RCPs [reactor coolant pumps] will no longer be 
required. If the RCS loops are not filled, two SDC trains will be 
required. These are not significant changes to the Mode 5 
requirements. In Mode 6, the SDC train requirements are more 
restrictive since both SDC trains will be required unless the 
refueling cavity is filled to at least 23 feet above the reactor 
vessel flange.
    Changes to the action statements will be made based on the 
proposed changes to the LCOs. If the required equipment is not 
operable, the proposed action requirements will require timely 
restoration of the equipment, or the plant will be placed in a 
configuration where there is no adverse impact associated with the 
inoperable equipment. The changes to the action statements will also 
address additional combinations of inoperable equipment. The allowed 
outage times provide a reasonable time for repairs before requiring 
a plant shutdown to a lower mode, as applicable. The shutdown times 
will allow an orderly shutdown, as applicable, to be performed. 
Surveillance requirements will be added or modified as appropriate 
based on the changes to the LCOs. This will ensure the required 
equipment is operable. Additional restrictions will be placed on 
plant operation to properly control various evolutions when the 
plant is shutdown. These additional restrictions (e.g., how often 
the RCPs and SDC pumps can be secured) provide sufficient 
administrative control to ensure safe operation of the plant.
    The proposed changes will have no adverse effect on plant 
operation, or the availability or operation of any accident 
mitigation equipment. The plant response to the design basis 
accidents will not change. In addition, the proposed changes can not 
cause an accident. 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 Technical Specification changes will not alter the 
plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be 
installed) or require any new or unusual operator actions. They do 
not alter the way any structure, system, or component functions and 
do not significantly alter the manner in which the plant is 
operated. The proposed changes do not introduce any new failure 
modes. Also, the response of the plant and the operators following 
these accidents is unaffected by the changes. 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 Technical Specification changes are associated with 
the requirements for the RCS loops and SDC trains during all modes 
of plant operation. These systems provide for the transportation of 
heat from the reactor core to a heat sink. The specifications 
associated with these systems include requirements for various 
equipment, based on plant conditions, and provide appropriate 
actions to take if the required equipment is not available. This 
will ensure that the equipment necessary to mitigate the design 
basis accidents is available and functioning as assumed, or plant 
operation is limited accordingly.
    The proposed changes will result in Technical Specifications 
that are clear, concise, and easier for the plant operators to use. 
The format, structure and technical content of the affected 
specifications is consistent with current industry guidance as 
contained in NUREG-1432, with the exception of the third note to the 
LCO for Technical Specification 3.9.8.1. This note, which will allow 
the SDC pumps to be removed from operation, will provide additional 
operational flexibility to perform work that is currently done 
during plant heatup after the SDC trains have been removed from 
service, and to perform work on the valves located in the common SDC 
suction line. However, the restrictions on what work can be 
performed utilizing the provisions of this note, the plant 
conditions that must first be established, and the required 
management review of the planned plant evolution will ensure plant 
safety is maintained.
    The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are 
consistent with the Millstone Unit No. 2 design basis accident 
analyses. This will ensure the analyses remains valid, and the 
consequences of the accidents are acceptable. They will provide the 
necessary control to ensure the required plant conditions are 
established and the required plant equipment is available. If the 
required equipment is not operable, the proposed action requirements 
will require timely restoration of the equipment or the plant will 
be placed in a configuration where there is no adverse impact 
associated with the inoperable equipment. The proposed allowed 
outage times provide a reasonable time for repairs before requiring 
a plant shutdown, as applicable, and reflect the low probability of 
an event occurring while the equipment is inoperable. The proposed 
shutdown times will allow an orderly shutdown, as applicable, to be 
performed. The proposed allowed outage times and shutdown times are 
consistent with times already contained in the Millstone Unit No. 2 
Technical Specifications and with generic industry guidance (NUREG-
1432), where applicable.
    The proposed changes will have no adverse effect on plant 
operation or equipment important to safety. The plant response to 
the design basis accidents will not change and the accident 
mitigation equipment will continue to function as assumed in the 
design basis accident analyses. Therefore, there will be no 
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.

[[Page 46750]]

    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By August 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 through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at 
the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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 Ms. L. M. Cuoco, 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)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 1, 2000, as supplemented on 
June 1 and July 13, 2000, which are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of July, 2000.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-19247 Filed 7-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P