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 change to the Millstone Unit 2 Technical

Specifications (TS) would provide a one-time extension of the

surveillance frequency from the required 18-month to the next refueling

outage but no later than September 30, 1994, of the power operated

valves in the service water system (TS 4.7.4.4.1.b) and in the boran

injection flow path (TS 4.1.2.2.c). This would extend the surveillance

for these valves approximately 5 months.

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 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 consideration (SHC), 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.

Technical Specification 4.1.2.2.c

The subject valve in the boron injection flowpath was exercised

through a complete cycle on March 7, 1994, during the performance of

SP 2601A. This surveillance verified the valve's operability.

However, the performance of this surveillance did not satisfy

literal compliance with Technical Specification 4.1.2.2.c, because

it was not performed while the unit was shutdown. A one-time

extension to the surveillance frequency for the subject valve in the

boron injection system does not involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

Technical Specification 4.7.4.1.b

Service water valves 2-SW-3.1A and 2-SW-3.1B are normally open

and are designed to fail in the ``as is'' position. The valves do

not perform any active safety function (are not considered in any

operational procedure to mitigate the effects of an abnormal event),

nor do they provide isolation between the two service water headers.

Their primary function is to isolate the downstream portion of the

header for maintenance activities. Increasing the time interval

between performance of surveillance testing 2-SW-3.1A and 2-SW-3.1B

does not involve a significant increase in the probability or the

consequences of a previously analyzed accident.

In addition, a review of the maintenance and operational history

of the service water system valves did not identify any previous

problems with the ability of the valves to open or close, or to meet

any other design requirements.

Therefore, the one-time extension of the surveillance interval

does not involve a significant increase in the probability of

consequences of an accident.

2. Create the possibility of new or different kind of accident

from any previously analyzed.

The proposed changes 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 is a one-

time extension of the surveillance intervals for one power-operated

valve in the boron injection system and two power-operated valves in

the service water system. Thus, the proposed changes do not

introduce any new failure modes, and they do not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The proposed changes to Technical Specifications 4.1.2.2.c and

4.7.4.1.b do not involve any changes to any safety limits,

setpoints, or design margins. Also the proposed changes do not

affect any protective boundaries.

Technical Specifications 4.1.2.2.c

The subject value in the boron injection flowpath was exercised

through a complete cycle on March 7, 1994. This surveillance did not

satisfy literal compliance with Technical Specification 4.1.2.2.c,

because it was not performed while the unit was shutdown. A one-time

extension of the surveillance for the subject valve in the boron

injection system does not involve a significant reduction in the

margin of safety.

Service water valves 2-SW-3.1A and 2-SW-3.1B are normally open

and are designed to fail in the ``as is'' position. The valves do

not perform any active safety function (are not considered in any

operational procedure to mitigate the effects of an abnormal event),

nor do they provide isolation between the two service water headers.

Their primary function is to isolate the downstream portion of the

header for maintenance activities. Since service water valves 2-SW-

3.1A and 2-SW-3.1B possess no risk significance, the proposed one-

time extension to the surveillance frequency for service water

valves 2-SW-3.1A and 2-SW-3.1B does 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 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 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 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 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 P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue,

Bethesda, 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 April 22, 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 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 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 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 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: 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 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 March 14, 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 16th day of March 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. 94-6760 Filed 3-22-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M