Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.; 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

[Docket No. 50-423]

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al.; 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 or NRC) is

considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO or the

licensee) for operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3

(MP3), located in New London County, Connecticut.

The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS)

1.40, ``Spent Fuel Pool Storage Pattern''; 1.1, ``3-OUT-OF-4 AND 4-OUT-

OF-4''; 3/4.9.1.2, ``Boron Concentration''; 3/4.9.7, ``Crane Travel--

Spent Fuel Storage Areas''; 3/4.9.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity'';

3.9.14, ``Spent Fuel Pool--Storage Pattern''; 5.6.1.1, ``Design

Features--Criticality''; and 5.6.3, ``Design Features--Capacity.'' In

addition, the proposed amendment would replace figures 3.9-1 and 3.9-2

with 4 new figures and make changes to the TS Bases consistent with

changes to their respective TS sections. These changes are being made

to support the proposed increase in the capacity of the spent fuel pool

at MP3 from 756 assemblies to 1,860 assemblies (an increase of 1,104).

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, which is presented

below:

[[Page 48673]]

In accordance with 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the proposed

changes and has concluded that they do not involve a Significant

Hazards Consideration (SHC). The basis for this conclusion is that

the three criteria of 10CFR50.92(c) are not compromised. The

proposed changes do not involve a significant hazard because they

would not;

2.1 Involve a significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

In the analysis of safety issues concerning the expanded pool

storage capacity, NNECO has considered the following potential

accident scenarios;

a. A spent fuel assembly drop with control rod and handling tool

b. A fuel pool gate drop

c. Potential damage due to a seismic event

d. Fuel assembly misloading/drop or pool temperature exceeding

160 deg.F

e. An accidental drop of a rack module during installation

activity in the pool

The probability that any of the first four accidents in the

above list can occur is not significantly increased by the

modification itself. All work in the pool area will be controlled

and performed in strict accordance with specific written procedures.

As for an installation accident, safe load paths will be established

that will prevent heavy loads from being transported over the spent

fuel. Proper functioning of the cranes will be checked and verified

before rack installation, and appropriate administrative controls

imposed. All lift rigging and the crane/hoist system will be

verified to comply with applicable plant and site procedures. All

heavy lifts will be performed in accordance with established station

procedures, which will comply with NUREG-0612, ``Control of Heavy

Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.'' These actions will minimize the

possibility of a heavy load drop accident. Fuel assembly handling

procedures and techniques are not affected by adding spent fuel

racks, and the probability of a fuel handling accident or misloading

is not increased.

Accordingly, the proposed modification does not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an accident previously

evaluated.

NNECO has evaluated the consequences of an accidental drop of a

fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool. The results show that such an

accident will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their

functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin, keff

less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained. The radiological

consequences of a fuel assembly drop are not increased from the

existing postulated fuel drop accident in Millstone Unit No. 3 FSAR

[Final Safety Analysis Report] Section 15.7.4. Thus, the

consequences of such an accident remain acceptable, and are not

different from any previously evaluated accidents that the NRC has

reviewed and accepted.

The consequences of an accidental drop of a fuel pool gate onto

racks has been evaluated. The results show that such an accident

will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their

functionality. The minimum subcriticality margin, keff

less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained. In addition, the

Technical Specifications do not allow fuel to be under a fuel pool

gate when one is moved. The analysis indicates no radiological

consequences from this postulated accident. Thus, the consequences

of such an accident remain acceptable, and are not different from

any previously evaluated accidents that he NRC has reviewed and

accepted.

The consequences of a design basis seismic event have been

evaluated and found acceptable. The proposed additional racks and

existing racks have been analyzed in their new configuration and

found safe and impact-free during seismic motion, save for the

baseplate-to-baseplate impacts of the proposed additional racks

which are shown to cause no damage to the racks[,] cells[,] or

Boral. The structural capability of the pool walls and basemat will

not be exceeded under the loads. Thus, the consequences of a seismic

event are not significantly increased.

The consequences of a misloading/drop of a fuel assembly during

fuel movement have been evaluated. The minimum subcriticality

margin, keff less than or equal to 0.95, will continue to

be maintained because of the proposed pool water soluble boron

related requirements. Thus, the consequences of such an accident

remain acceptable, and are not different from any previously

evaluated accidents that the NRC has reviewed and accepted.

The consequences of an accidental drop of a rack module into the

pool during placement have been evaluated. The analysis confirmed

that very limited damage to the liner could occur, which is

repairable. Any small seepage occurring is well within makeup

capability, and is mitigated by emergency operating procedures. All

movements of racks over the pool will comply with the applicable

guidelines. Therefore, the consequences of an installation accident

are not increased from any previously evaluated accident.

The consequences of a spent fuel cask drop into the pool have

not been considered in this submittal since NNECO is not currently

licensed to move a fuel cask into the Millstone Unit No. 3 cask pit

area.

Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed changes to the

Technical Specifications and licensing basis for Millstone Unit No.

3 do not significantly increase the probability or consequences of

any accident previously evaluated.

2.2 Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident

from any previously analyzed.

The proposed change does not alter the operating requirements of

the plant or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the

design basis accidents. Therefore, the potential for an unanalyzed

accident is not created. The postulated failure modes associated

with the change do not significantly decrease the coolability,

criticality margin, or structural integrity of the spent fuel in the

pool. The resulting structural, thermal, and seismic loads are

acceptable.

Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.

2.3 Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

The function of the spent fuel pool is to store the fuel

assemblies in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all

environmental and abnormal loadings, such as an earthquake, fuel

assembly drop, fuel pool gate drop, or drop of another heavy object.

The new rack design must meet all applicable requirements for safe

storage and be functionally compatible with the other rack design in

the spent fuel pool.

NNECO has addressed the safety issues related to the expanded

pool storage capacity in the following areas:

1. Material, mechanical, and structural considerations

2. Nuclear criticality

3. Thermal-hydraulic and pool cooling

The mechanical, material, and structural designs of the new

racks have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable

provisions of NRC ``OT Position for the Review and Acceptance of

Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications'', April 14, 1978, as

amended January 18, 1979. The rack materials used are compatible

with the spent fuel assemblies and the spent fuel pool environment.

The design of the new racks preserves the proper margin of safety

during abnormal loads such as a dropped fuel assembly, a postulated

seismic event, a dropped fuel pool gate, and tensile loads from a

stuck fuel assembly. It has been shown that such loads will not

invalidate the mechanical design and material selection to safely

store fuel in a coolable and subcritical configuration. Also, it has

been shown that the pool structure will maintain its integrity and

function during normal operation, all postulated accident sequences,

and postulated seismic events.

The methodology used in the criticality analysis of the expanded

spent fuel pool storage capacity meets the appropriate NRC

guidelines and the ANSI [American National Standards Institute]

standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is determined by

a neutron multiplication factor less than or equal to 0.95 under all

accident conditions, including uncertainties. This criterion has

been preserved in all analyzed accidents and seismic events.

The special circumstances regarding transitioning to the revised

[T]echnical [S]pecifications was discussed. At present, NNECO

estimates that there will be approximately 120 fuel assemblies

stored in existing racks that will not meet the burnup/enrichment

requirements for storage in these racks under the proposed Technical

Specifications. During the actual reracking effort, including

transfer of these assemblies from existing racks to Region 1 and 2

racks, existing soluble boron and Boraflex related requirements and

surveillances will continue to be enforced. Also, when transferring

these assemblies to Region 1 and 2 racks, the burnup/enrichment

requirements of these racks will be enforced. After fuel transfer is

complete, the revised Technical Specifications will be fully

implemented. These requirements ensure that the neutron

multiplication factor will remain less than or equal to 0.95 during

the whole period of the rerack.

[[Page 48674]]

The rerack thermal hydraulic analysis is based on NNECO's

January 18, 1999, submittal analysis which bound the heat load of

this licensing amendment request. The rerack thermal hydraulic

analysis found that, in the blocked hottest stored assembly, the

local peak water temperature will remain below boiling, and the fuel

clad will not experience high temperatures.

Regarding Technical Specification Surveillance 4.9.7, since the

proposed change continues to meet the requirements of Technical

Specification 3.9.7, that is it prohibits a crane from carrying a

load greater that 2,200 lbs [pounds] over fuel in the spent fuel

pool to preclude fuel damage, the margin of safety is maintained.

Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes to the Technical

Specifications and licensing basis of Millstone Unit No. 3 do not

involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety at Millstone

Unit No. 3.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based upon

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.

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 Chief, Rules and

Directives 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. Copies of

written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By October 7, 1999, 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 such 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 that is available

at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public document rooms

located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers Community-

Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and

the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road,

Waterford, Connecticut. If a request for a hearing and 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 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 to 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

[[Page 48675]]

hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene

must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the

Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street,

NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should

also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Ms. Lillian M.

Cuoco, Esquire, Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service

Company, P. O. 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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).

Pursuant to the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR 2.1107, the

Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an

application for a license amendment falling within the scope of section

134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154.

Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of any

party to the proceeding, must use hybrid hearing procedures with

respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in

controversy among the parties.''

The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral argument on

matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under the Commission's

rules and the designation, following argument of only those factual

issues that involve a genuine and substantial dispute, together with

any remaining questions of law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory

hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those

issues found to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing

after oral argument.

The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are

found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for

Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power

Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). Under

those rules, any party to the proceeding may invoke the hybrid hearing

procedures by filing with the presiding officer a written request for

oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be

filed within ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing

or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely

request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely

request for oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the

requesting party for the failure to file on time and after providing

the other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request. If

the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any hearing

held on the application must be conducted in accordance with the hybrid

hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures limit the time

available for discovery and require that an oral argument be held to

determine whether any contentions must be resolved in an adjudicatory

hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument,

and if all untimely requests for oral argument are denied, then the

usual procedures in 10 CFR part 2, subpart G apply.

For further details with respect to this action, see the

application for amendment dated March 19, 1999, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public

document rooms located at the Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers

Community-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich,

Connecticut, and the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope

Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of August, 1999.

James W. Clifford,

Chief, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 99-23157 Filed 9-3-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P