[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56604-56607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-22490]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50423]


Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; 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. 
NPF49 issued to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (the licensee) for 
operation of the Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (MP3), located in 
New London County, Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.0.3 to extend the delay period, before 
entering a Limiting Condition for Operation, following a missed 
surveillance. The delay period would be extended from the current limit 
of ``. . . up to 24 hours'' to ``. . . up to 24 hours or up to the 
limit of the specified surveillance interval, whichever is greater.'' 
In addition, the following requirement would be added to SR 4.0.3: ``A 
risk evaluation shall be performed for any surveillance delayed greater 
than 24 hours and the risk impact shall be managed.''
    The NRC staff issued a notice of opportunity for comment in the 
Federal Register on June 14, 2001 (66 FR 32400), on possible amendments 
concerning missed surveillances, including a model safety evaluation 
and model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination, 
using the consolidated line item improvement process (CLIIP). The NRC 
staff subsequently issued a notice of availability of the models for 
referencing in license amendment applications in the Federal Register 
on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49714). The licensee affirmed the 
applicability of the model NSHC determination for amendments concerning 
missed surveillances in its application dated July 19, 2002.
    The proposed amendment would also make administrative changes to 
SRs 4.0.1 and 4.0.3 to be consistent with NUREG1431, Revision 2, 
``Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.'' These changes are 
necessary to make the current MP3 TSs compatible with the proposed 
CLIIP changes for missed surveillances. The licensee provided its 
analysis of the issue of NSHC for these proposed changes in its 
application.

[[Page 56605]]

    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 NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 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), an analysis of 
the issue of NSHC is presented below:

Criterion 1--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously 
Evaluated

[CLIIP Changes]

    The proposed change relaxes the time allowed to perform a missed 
surveillance. The time between surveillances is not an initiator of 
any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of 
an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased. The 
equipment being tested is still required to be operable and capable 
of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the 
accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated are not significantly affected. Any reduction 
in confidence that a standby system might fail to perform its safety 
function due to a missed surveillance is small and would not, in the 
absence of other unrelated failures, lead to an increase in 
consequences beyond those estimated by existing analyses. The 
addition of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced 
by the missed surveillance will further minimize possible concerns. 
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

[Administrative Changes]

    The proposed change involves rewording of the existing Technical 
Specifications to be consistent with NUREG1431, Revision 2. These 
modifications involve no technical changes to the existing Technical 
Specifications. As such, these changes are administrative in nature 
and do not affect initiators of analyzed events or assumed 
mitigation of accident or transient events. Therefore, these changes 
will not increase the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 2--The Proposed Change Does Not Create the Possibility of a 
New or Different Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated

[CLIIP Changes]

    The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of 
the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) 
or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. A 
missed surveillance will not, in and of itself, introduce new 
failure modes or effects and any increased chance that a standby 
system might fail to perform its safety function due to a missed 
surveillance would not, in the absence of other unrelated failures, 
lead to an accident beyond those previously evaluated. The addition 
of a requirement to assess and manage the risk introduced by the 
missed surveillance will further minimize possible concerns. Thus, 
this change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

[Administrative Changes]

    The proposed change involves rewording of the existing Technical 
Specifications to be consistent with NUREG1431, Revision 2. The 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new 
or different type of equipment will be installed) or changes in 
methods governing normal plant operation. The changes will not 
impose any new or different requirements or eliminate any existing 
requirements. Therefore, these changes will not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.

Criterion 3--The Proposed Change Does Not Involve a Significant 
Reduction in the Margin of Safety

[CLIIP Changes]

    The extended time allowed to perform a missed surveillance does 
not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As 
supported by the historical data, the likely outcome of any 
surveillance is verification that the LCO [Limiting Condition for 
Operation] is met. Failure to perform a surveillance within the 
prescribed frequency does not cause equipment to become inoperable. 
The only effect of the additional time allowed to perform a missed 
surveillance on the margin of safety is the extension of the time 
until inoperable equipment is discovered to be inoperable by the 
missed surveillance. However, given the rare occurrence of 
inoperable equipment, and the rare occurrence of a missed 
surveillance, a missed surveillance on inoperable equipment would be 
very unlikely. This must be balanced against the real risk of 
manipulating the plant equipment or condition to perform the missed 
surveillance. In addition, parallel trains and alternate equipment 
are typically available to perform the safety function of the 
equipment not tested. Thus, there is confidence that the equipment 
can perform its assumed safety function.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in a margin of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, the requested change does not 
involve a significant hazards consideration.

[Administrative Changes]

    The proposed change involves rewording of the existing Technical 
Specifications to be consistent with NUREG1431, Revision 2. The 
changes are administrative in nature and will not involve any 
technical changes. The changes will not reduce a margin of safety 
because they have no impact on any safety analysis assumptions. 
Also, since these changes are administrative in nature, no question 
of safety is involved. Therefore, there will be no reduction in a 
margin of safety.

    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 NSHC.
    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 NSHC. 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 
205550001, 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. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland.

[[Page 56606]]

    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By October 4, 2002, 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,\1\ which is 
available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in 
accessing the document, contact the Public Document Room Reference 
staff at 18003974209, 3014154737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The most recent version of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, published January 1, 2002, inadvertently omitted the 
last sentence of 10 CFR 2.714(d) and subparagraphs (d)(1) and (2), 
regarding petitions to intervene and contentions. Those provisions 
are extant and still applicable to petitions to intervene. Those 
provisions are as follows: ``In all other circumstances, such ruling 
body or officer shall, in ruling on--
    (1)A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing, 
consider the following factors, among other things:
    (i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be 
made a party to the proceeding.
    (ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
    (iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in 
the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
    (2) The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a 
contention if:
    (i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
    (ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in 
the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 NSHC. The final determination will serve 
to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
NSHC, 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 205550001, Attention: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of 
the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States 
Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to 
intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of 
the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 3014151101 
or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the petition for leave 
to intervene and request for hearing should also be sent to the Office 
of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 205550001, and because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail 
to United States Government offices, it is requested that copies be 
transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 3014153725 or 
by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing 
and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Lillian M. 
Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Rope 
Ferry Road, Waterford, CT 06385, 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).

[[Page 56607]]

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 19, 2002, which is available for 
public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 18003974209, 
3014154737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of August, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Victor Nerses,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 02-22490 Filed 9302; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 759001P