[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 96 (Friday, May 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28534-28537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11030]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-336 and 50-423]


Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Renewed 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 Renewed Facility Operating 
License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49 issued to Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, 
Inc. (DNC, the licensee), for operation of the Millstone Power Station, 
Unit Nos. 2 (MPS2) and 3 (MPS3), located in New London County, 
Connecticut.
    The proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specifications 
(TSs) and facility operating licenses in response to the application 
dated July 13, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated December 7, 2007, 
March 5 and 25, 2008, and April 28, 2008. The proposed amendment would 
establish more effective and appropriate action, surveillance, and 
administrative requirements related to ensuring the habitability of the 
control room envelope (CRE) in accordance with the Commission-approved 
TS Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specification change traveler 
TSTF-448, Revision 3, ``Control Room Habitability.'' Additionally, the 
proposed amendment would change the ``irradiated fuel movement'' 
terminology and adopt ``movement of recently irradiated fuel 
assemblies'' terminology consistent with TSTF-448, Revision 3.
    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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that

[[Page 28535]]

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:

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

    (a) The proposed change does not adversely affect accident 
initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, 
conditions, or configuration of the facility. The proposed change 
does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and 
components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the 
consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance 
limits. The proposed change revises the TS for the CRE emergency 
ventilation system, which is a mitigation system designed to 
minimize unfiltered air leakage into the CRE and to filter the CRE 
atmosphere to protect the CRE occupants in the event of accidents 
previously analyzed. An important part of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is the CRE boundary. The CRE emergency 
ventilation system is not an initiator or precursor to any accident 
previously evaluated. Therefore, the probability of any accident 
previously evaluated is not increased. Performing tests to verify 
the operability of the CRE boundary and implementing a program to 
assess and maintain CRE habitability ensure that the CRE emergency 
ventilation system is capable of adequately mitigating radiological 
consequences to CRE occupants during accident conditions, and that 
the CRE emergency ventilation system will perform as assumed in the 
consequence analyses of design basis accidents. Thus, the 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased. 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    (b) The proposed change revising the TS from ``irradiated fuel 
movement'' to ``movement of recently irradiated fuel assemblies,'' 
referred to hereafter as the ``recently irradiated fuel'' change, is 
used to establish operational conditions on CRE emergency 
ventilation where significant radioactive releases can be 
postulated. These operational conditions are consistent with the 
design basis analysis. Inoperability of the CRE emergency 
ventilation system cannot increase the probability of a fuel 
handling accident (FHA) because the CRE emergency ventilation system 
is not considered an initiator to a FHA. The definition will allow 
fuel movement without the requirement of an operable CRE emergency 
ventilation system as long as fuel exceeds the decay time specified 
in the TS bases. As submitted to the NRC in the Response to Request 
for Additional Information, dated December 7, 2007, this decay time 
is 300 hours for MPS2 and MPS3 (350 hours for MPS3 [Stretch Power 
Uprate] SPU). The consequences of a FHA while moving non-recently 
irradiated fuel without an operable CRE emergency ventilation system 
remain less than the limits specified in 10 CFR 50.67. Other TS 
changes relating to ``recently irradiated fuel'' do not involve any 
accidents previously evaluated. Therefore the proposed ``recently 
irradiated fuel'' change does not involve a significant increase in 
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 Accident Previously 
Evaluated

    (a) The proposed change does not impact the accident analysis. 
The proposed change does not alter the required mitigation 
capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system, or its 
functioning during accident conditions as assumed in the licensing 
basis analyses of design basis accident radiological consequences to 
CRE occupants. No new or different accidents result from performing 
the new surveillance or following the new program. The proposed 
change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no 
new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a 
significant change in the methods governing normal plant operation. 
The proposed change does not alter any safety analysis assumptions 
and is consistent with current plant operating practice. Therefore, 
this change does not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    (b) The proposed ``recently irradiated fuel'' change does not 
affect nor create a different type of FHA. The FHA analyses continue 
to assume that all the iodine and noble gases that become airborne, 
escape and reach the CRE with no credit taken for deposition, 
filtration, or containment of the release. The proposed ``recently 
irradiated fuel'' change does not involve the addition or 
modification of equipment or the design of plant systems. The 
proposed ``recently irradiated fuel'' change does not alter the 
mitigating capability of the CRE emergency ventilation system after 
a FHA involving recently irradiated fuel. This change only permits 
the CRE emergency ventilation system to be inoperable for a FHA 
involving fuel that has decayed beyond the ``recently irradiated 
fuel'' definition in the TS Bases. For this consideration, the dose 
consequences to CR occupants remain below the limits required in 10 
CFR 50.67. No new or different accidents result from defining the 
time after shutdown that CRE emergency ventilation system is 
required to be operable. Other TS changes relating to ``recently 
irradiated fuel'' do not create any accidents. Therefore, the 
proposed ``recently irradiated fuel'' change regarding recently 
irradiated fuel does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

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

    (a) The proposed change does not alter the manner in which 
safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting 
conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change does 
not affect safety analysis acceptance criteria. The proposed change 
will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the 
design basis for an unacceptable period of time without compensatory 
measures. The proposed change does not adversely affect systems that 
respond to safely shut down the plant and to maintain the plant in a 
safe shutdown condition. Therefore, the proposed change does not 
involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    (b) The proposed ``recently irradiated fuel'' change decay time 
limits on recently irradiated fuel are used to establish operational 
conditions on the CRE emergency ventilation system where specific 
activities represent situations where significant radioactive 
releases can be postulated. Safety margins and analytical 
conservatisms have been evaluated through the use of accepted 
methodology. Although CRE doses have slightly increased for all but 
the MPS3 [Alternate Source Term] AST, there was not a significant 
reduction in the margin of safety. These operational conditions are 
consistent with the design basis analysis and are established such 
that the radiological consequences to the CRE occupants are below 
the limits specified in 10 CFR 50.67. Other TS changes relating to 
``recently irradiated fuel'' are not related to a margin of safety. 
Therefore, operations of the facility in accordance with the 
proposed ``recently irradiated fuel'' changes would not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    Based upon the above assessment and the previous discussion of 
the amendment request, DNC concludes that the proposed change does 
not involve a significant hazards consideration.

    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 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The 
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the

[[Page 28536]]

Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day 
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, 
for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the 
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment 
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place 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, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing 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. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
person(s) may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any 
person(s) whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who 
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request via electronic submission through the NRC E-filing system 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 person(s) should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's 
PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 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/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to 
intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding 
officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative 
Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a 
hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
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/requestor 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. 
The petition must include 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/requestor 
who fails to satisfy 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.
    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 hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be 
filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule, which the NRC 
promulgated on August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49139). The E-Filing process 
requires participants to submit and serve documents over the internet 
or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. 
Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they 
seek a waiver in accordance with the procedures described below.
    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 
five (5) days prior to the filing deadline, the petitioner/requestor 
must contact the Office of the Secretary by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (301) 415-1677, to request (1) a 
digital ID certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or 
representative) to digitally sign documents and access the E-Submittal 
server for any proceeding in which it is participating; and/or (2) 
creation of an electronic docket for the proceeding (even in instances 
in which the petitioner/requestor (or its counsel or representative) 
already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Each petitioner/
requestor will need to download the Workplace Forms ViewerTM 
to access the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE), a component of the 
E-Filing system. The Workplace Forms Viewer\TM\ is free and is 
available at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/install-viewer.html. Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is 
available on NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/apply-certificates.html.
    Once a petitioner/requestor has obtained a digital ID certificate, 
had a

[[Page 28537]]

docket created, and downloaded the EIE viewer, it can then submit a 
request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene. Submissions 
should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC 
guidance available on the NRC public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the 
time the filer submits its documents through EIE. To be timely, an 
electronic filing must be submitted to the EIE system no later than 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a 
transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends 
the submitter an e-mail notice confirming receipt of the document. The 
EIE system also distributes an e-mail notice that provides access to 
the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others 
who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to 
participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the 
documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and 
other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for 
and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition 
to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document 
via the E-Filing system.
    A person filing electronically may seek assistance through the 
``Contact Us'' link located on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html or by calling the NRC technical help line, 
which is available between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Eastern Time, 
Monday through Friday. The help line number is (800) 397-4209 or 
locally, (301) 415-4737. Participants who believe that they have a good 
cause for not submitting documents electronically must file a motion, 
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing 
requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper 
format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or 
expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth 
Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. 
Participants filing a document in this manner are responsible for 
serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered 
complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or 
by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing 
the document with the provider of the service.
    Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition 
and/or request should be granted and/or the contentions should be 
admitted, based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). To be timely, filings must be submitted no later 
than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date.
    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in 
NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at 
http://ehd.nrc.gov/EHD_Proceeding/home.asp, unless excluded pursuant 
to an order of the Commission, an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, or 
a Presiding Officer. Participants are requested not to include personal 
privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, 
or home phone numbers in their filings. With respect to copyrighted 
works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the 
adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, 
Participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in 
their submissions.
    For further details with respect to this license amendment 
application, see the application for amendment dated July 13, 2007, as 
supplemented by letters dated December 7, 2007, March 5 and 25, 2008, 
and April 28, 2008, which are available for public inspection at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically 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 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of May 2008.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John D. Hughey,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E8-11030 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P