[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10666]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 4, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.; 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-21, issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO/the
licensee), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit
No. 2, located in New London County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications
(TS) to change the laboratory testing protocol for the charcoal
absorbers for the Control Room Emergency Ventilation System (TS
3.7.6.1) and the Enclosure Building Filtration System (TS 3.6.5.1).
Because the present TS requires a test on carbon samples of
charcoal absorbers that the licensee's vendor had not and could not
perform, the TS must be changed to allow testing of carbon samples to a
standard that is more accurate and capable of performance. The plant is
presently operating and during a review of the recent ventilation
system testing, the licensee's Quality Services Department discovered a
discrepancy in the references identified in the vendor test procedure
as compared to the Millstone Unit 2 TS requirements. Further, on April
12, 1994, the licensee discovered that the vendor's test equipment
could not support the laboratory test required by the testing standard
currently referenced in the Millstone Unit No. 2 TS. The inplace
charcoal for the ``B'' facilities of the Control Room Emergency
Ventilation System and the Enclosure Building Ventilation System were
conservatively determined to be inoperable because the surveillance
performed on these units had been satisfied utilizing a standard (ASTM
Standard D3803-79/86) not specified in the Millstone Unit 2 TS. Thus
the licensee immediately declared the affected facilities inoperable
and entered the 7 day action statement. The action statements require
the affected systems to be restored to an operable status within 7 days
or the plant be placed in at least hot standby within the next 6 hours
and in cold shutdown within the following 30 hours. Due to the fact
that the time necessary to process the application for amendment would
be longer than the remaining time of the 7 day action statement,
exigent action is justified in order to reduce the time of enforcement
discretion which was granted until the license amendment is issued.
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 (SHC) consideration, which is
presented below:
The proposed changes do not involve a SHC because the changes would
not:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously analyzed.
NNECO's proposal to revise Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specifications 4.6.5.1.b.2., 4.6.5.1.c, 4.7.6.1.c.2, 4.7.6.1.d,
4.9.15.b.2, and 4.9.15.c will permit carbon samples to be tested in
accordance with ASTM D3803-89 versus ANSI N509-1976. ASTM Standard
D3803-89 is used industry wide, and is acknowledged by the NRC as an
acceptable method for the testing of activated charcoal bed filters.
In addition, testing in accordance with ASTM Standard D3803-89
yields more accurate results than testing in accordance with ANSI
N509-1976. The removal efficiency requirement is not affected by the
proposed changes.
NNECO's proposal to correct the reference to Regulatory position
C.6.a in Technical Specification 4.9.15.b.2 is an editorial
correction.
Based on the above, the proposed changes do not involve an
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously analyzed.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously analyzed.
The proposed changes to Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specifications 4.6.5.1.b.2, 4.6.5.1.c, 4.7.6.1.c.2, 4.7.6.1.d,
4.9.15.b.2, and 4.9.15.c do not involve any physical modifications
to any equipment, structures, or components, nor do they involve any
changes to any plant operating procedures. The only change would be
to use a more reliable method to determine filter efficiency at the
laboratory.
NNECO's proposal to correct the reference to Regulatory Position
C.6.a in Technical Specification 4.9.15.b.2 is an editorial
correction.
Thus, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed changes to Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical
Specifications 4.6.5.1.b.2, 4.6.5.1.c, 4.6.5.1.c.2, 4.7.6.1.d,
4.9.15.b.2, and 4.9.15.c do not modify the requirement for carbon
sample removal efficiency, do not involve a change in any safety
limits, setpoints, or design margins, and do not affect any
protective boundaries. Additionally, the proposed methodology has
been determined to be more accurate.
NNECO's proposal to correct the reference to Regulatory Position
C.6.a in Technical Specification 4.9.15.b.2 is an editorial
correction.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a reduction in
the 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 15 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 15-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 15-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. The Commission expects that the need to
take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11555 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By June 3, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local
public document room located at the Learning Resource Center, Three
Rivers Community-Technical College, Thames Valley Campus, 574 New
London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360. 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 particularly 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 a 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 providing 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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, Attention: Docketing and Services
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the
above date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the
notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform
the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-
(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union
operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the
following message addressed to John F. Stolz, Director, Project
Directorate I-4: petitioners' name and telephone number, date petition
was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this
Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to
the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and to Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry &
Howard, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499, 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 April 14, 1994, as supplemented April
20, 1994, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room, located at
the Learning Resource Center, Three Rivers Community-Technical College,
Thames Valley Campus, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut
06360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vernon L. Rooney,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-10666 Filed 5-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M