ML20064K522
| ML20064K522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1994 |
| From: | Vissing G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20064K525 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9403230144 | |
| Download: ML20064K522 (8) | |
Text
.
7590-01 QUITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY 00CKET NO. 50-336 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DEIERMINATION. 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 (NNEC0/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 9403230144 940316 PDR ADOCK 05000336 P
. 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.lA and 2-SW-3.lB 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.lA and 2-SW-3.lB 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 or consequences of an accident.
2.
Create the possibility of new or different kind of accident form 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 Specification 4.1.2.2.c The subject valve 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.lA and 2-SW-3.lB are normally open and i
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.lA and 2-SW-3.lB possess no risk significance, the proposed one-time extension to the surveillance frequency for service water j
valves 2-SW-3.lA and 2-SW-3.lB 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 l
k,
- 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
. 4 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 o,' 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; i
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 i
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 L-
1 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 i
sought to be litigated in tha 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 l
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the pet tioner 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 ine 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 i
4 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 i
i
i a 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, i
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, 1
t
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 fiarch 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
./
Guy ssing, Seni d Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 t
Division of Reactor Projects - I/.11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Reguhtion i
i
. - - -