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

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