ML20035H686
| ML20035H686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1993 |
| From: | Rooney V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035H687 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305060221 | |
| Download: ML20035H686 (8) | |
Text
_ _
O i
I 7590-01 i
UNITEDSTATESNUCLEARREGULATORY20MMISSION NORTHEAST N"rLEAR ENERGY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-423
{
i NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO j
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-49, issued to I
i Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (the licensee), for operation of the l
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 located in New London, Connecticut.
i The licensee has requested that technical specifications be changed to extend the interval for surveillance testing of 42 instrumentation and control I
i items presently required to be tested by June 13, 1993, or later, until the f
next refueling outage, but no later than September 30, 1993.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will i
have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the i
Act) and the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission'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 9305060221 930429 PDR ADOCK 05000423 p
PDR 4
u
O
-2 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:
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 [ surveillance test interval] STI increases, in theory, do cause a small increase in the unavailability of the [ engineered safety feature actuation system] ESFAS, [ reactor trip system] RTS, or other systems associated with the instruments and thereby a resultant small increase in the core damage frequency (CDF). Where quantifications were made, the maximum increase in CDF was found to be of the order of 10' /yr or less, which is below the level of concern. Furthermore, the small increase is a one-time change and not a permanent increase. Where qualitative assessments were made, a combination of one or more factors, such as:
a) diverse signals; b) redundant paths; c) proven low failure rates based on plant-specific data; d) relatively low risk significance of the function in core damage prevention / mitigation; and e) other more frequent l
tests, were used to justify de minimus low risk increases.
In addition, daily channel checks and analog channel operational tests will continue to be performed at the frequencies required by technical specifications. These surveillances will continue to assure that the instrument reliability assumed in the basis of technical specifications is maintained.
j 2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
fhere are no physical design changes or changes in plant operating procedures. Therefore, there can be no impact on plant response to the point where a different accident is created.
3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a change in the safety limits, setpoints, or design margins. Also, the proposed changes do not significantly affect the consequences of an accident or any of the protective boundaries. Therefore, the proposed changes will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
i
j
~i
{ t The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this f
review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c).are satisfied.
f i
Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Comission is seeking public coments on this proposed
~
t determination. Any coments 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 i
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 l
no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State coments received. Should the Commission take this i
action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER 'a notice of issuance and l
?
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 1
this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 t
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 15, 1993
, 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 i
2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman t
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Thames Valley State i
Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut.
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, i
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 l
t I
i
U; i o 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 interett 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 interventioYi 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
1 s 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 i
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 entitic 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 it, 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 imediately 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.
i i
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission'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 Comission 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 Mr. 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.
i Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Gerald Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499, attorney for the licensee.
6 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 tSe Comisdon, 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 30, 1993, as supplemented April 20 and April 27, 1993, j
which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document i
i Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Learning Resources Center, Thames Valley State Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
/
i Vernon L. Rooney, Se for Project Manager Project Directorate
-4 Division of Reactor rojects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation O
+
I