Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company; 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, located in New London County, Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications

(TS) by adding a footnote to Surveillance Requirement (SR) 4.6.1.2.d

that defers the performance of Type B and C containment leak rate tests

to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.

On September 24, 1994, NNECO requested the NRC to exercise its

discretion not to enforce compliance with the required actions for

Millstone Unit 2 Limiting Conditions for Operations (LCOs) 3.6.1.1 and

3.6.1.2 for the remainder of Cycle 12 operations. The enforcement

discretion would permit NNECO to operate Millstone Unit 2 while the

proposed amendment is being processed. Millstone Unit 2 was scheduled

to begin its refueling outage on October 1, and to enter Mode 5 on

October 3, 1994. On September 23, 1994, NNECO discovered that Type B

and C containment leak rate tests for certain containment penetrations

had not been performed within the 24 months as required by SR

4.6.1.2.d. The specific Action Statement for LCO 3.6.1.2. applies and

requires that containment integrity to be restored within 1 hour or

place the plant in hot standby within the next 6 hours, and in cold

shutdown within the following 30 hours. Since SR 4.6.1.2.d was

inadvertently missed, SR 4.0.3 was invoked at approximately 1 p.m. on

September 23, 1994. This SR permits the action requirements to be

delayed for up to 24 hours to permit the completion of a missed

surveillance when the allowable outage time limits of the action

requirements are less than 24 hours. Since the Type C test cannot be

performed while at power and the Type B tests that have exceeded the

24-month period cannot be completed within the 24-hour window,

Millstone Unit 2 would have been forced to shutdown to comply with the

requirements of the Millstone Unit 2 TS.

The NRC staff granted orally on September 24, 1994, NNECO's request

for enforcement discretion associated with Action Statements of LCOs

3.6.1.1. and 3.6.1.2. to be effective until the proposed amendment

would be issued. This enforcement discretion was confirmed by the NRC

letter to NNECO dates September 30, 1994.

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 amendment 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.

The proposed change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the

Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the

frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2

and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.

This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate

until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the next refueling

outage. This proposal does not modify the maximum allowable leakage

rate at the calculated peak containment pressure, does not impact

the design basis of the containment, and does not change the post-

accident containment response.

On February 8, 1988, NNECO conducted the first Type A test for

the Millstone Unit No. 2 present 10-year service period. The test

passed the ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' ILRTs. The ``As-Found''

leakage result was 0.201 weight percent per day and the ``As-Left''

leakage result was 0.138 weight percent per day. These values

represent 53.6% of 36.8% of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical

Specification Limit of 0.75 La (0.375 weight percent per day,

based on an La equal to 0.5 weight percent per day),

respectively. The second Type A test for the present 10-year service

period was conducted on December 24, 1992. The ``As-Found'' and

``As-Left'' ILRT results were 0.2809 and 0.2577 weight percent per

day, respectively. This values represent 74.9% and 68.7% of the

Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specification limit of 0.75La

(0.375 weight percent per day, based on an La equal to 0.5

weight percent per day). In addition, as of December 1992, the total

Type B and C ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' leakage results were 0.049

and 0.008 weight percent per day, respectively. These values

represent 16.3% and 2.7% of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical

Specification limit of 0.6 La (0.3 weight percent per day,

based on an La equal to 0.5 weight percent per day),

respectively. The results of these tests demonstrate that Millstone

Unit No. 2 has maintained control of containment integrity by

maintaining a conservative margin between the acceptance criterion

and the ``As-Found'' and ``As-Left'' leakage rates.

During the past two refueling outages, there have been few

failures of penetrations/values to pass their LLRTs. During the 1992

and 1990 refueling outages, there were a total of five failures

(four in 1992 and one in 1990) of penetrations/valves to pass their

LLRTs. Of these failures, only one (penetration 23/72 with valves

MS-191B and MS-220B) was a repeat failure. This penetration was

tested successfully approximately five months ago.

During Cycle 12, maintenance has been performed on several

penetrations/valves. Their operability has been assured by the

performance of post-maintenance LLRTs which demonstrated that the

leakage from the penetrations/valves were within their acceptance

criteria.

Additionally, the 48 Type B penetrations (electrical) and 21

Type C penetrations (valves) that are currently outside of the 24

month interval have each passed their last two ``As-Found'' tests,

as a minimum. These results indicate that the penetration/valves are

reliable.

Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance

Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical

Specifications does not involve a significant 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 change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.1.d of the

Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the

frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2

and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.

This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate

until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the next refueling

outage. This proposal does not make any physical or operational

changes to existing plant structures, systems, or components, does

not modify the maximum allowable leakage rate at the calculated peak

containment pressure, does not impact the design basis of the

containment, and does not change the post-accident containment

response.

In addition, the proposed changes do not modify the acceptance

criteria for the Type A, B, or C tests. Maintaining the leakage

through the containment boundary to the atmosphere within a specific

value ensures that the plant complies with the requirements of

10CFR100. The containment boundary serves as an accident mitigator;

it is not an accident initiator.

Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance

Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical

Specifications does 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 change to Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the

Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical Specifications will extend the

frequency for the Type B and C tests that were due between June 2

and September 1, 1994, to the end of the twelfth refueling outage.

This change will allow Millstone Unit No. 2 to continue to operate

until the plant conducts an orderly shutdown for the twelfth

refueling outage. This proposal does not make any physical or

operational changes to existing plant structures, systems, or

components, does not modify the containment pressure, does not

impact the design basis of the containment, and does not change the

post-accident containment response.

Additionally, the past Type A, B, and C tests have demonstrated

the leak-tightness of the containment and the reliability of the

penetrations/valves.

Based on the above, the proposed change to Surveillance

Requirement 4.6.1.2.d of the Millstone Unit No. 2 Technical

Specifications does not involve a significant 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 November 14, 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 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 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 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 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 signficant 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 Phillip F. McKee, Director, Project

Directorate I-4: petitioner's 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 Ms. L. M. Cuoco, Senior Nuclear Counsel,

Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post Office 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 September 26, 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 5th day of October 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Guy S. Vissing,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-25302 Filed 10-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M