ML20128E925
| ML20128E925 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1993 |
| From: | Rooney V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128E929 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302110149 | |
| Download: ML20128E925 (8) | |
Text
- - _ _ - _ - _ _
- z, a
d h.-
7590-01 Ut0TED STATES NI)[ LEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION NORTHEAS1 NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY QQCKET NO. 50-423 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINAll0N. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating Licente No.-NPF-49 issued to Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, (the licensee), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 3 located in New London County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment would revise the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical
(
Specifications, Section 4.7.10.e, by extending ^ the surveillance requirement i
/.
frequency for the snubber functional test: by allowing a one-time extension to the current 18-month surveillance, plus the additional 25 percent allowed by Technical Specification 4.0.2.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended '(the 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 9302110149 930203 1
PDR ADOCK 05000423-l P
pop
g 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 nargin 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 change does not involve an SHC because the change would not:
1.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
This Technical Specification change will have a negligible effect upon the probability of occurrence of accidents previously evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report. Although the snubber functional test cycle is being lengthened, nearly the same level of confidence as that associated with the Technical Specification required schedule will be maintained. The testing of 100 percent of the small snubbers population, along with replacement of failed units, provided a significantly improved baseline with which to gauge the reliability of the snubber population.
Increasing the functional test interval for snubbers will neither have an effect upon the consequences of an accident evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report, nor will it cause new consequences to occur.
As stated previously, an adequate level of confidence in the reliability of the snubber population will be maintained.
2.
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The snubber failure modes neither increase beyond required confidence levels relating to snubber population reliability, nor change due to the variation in the functional test interval.
Therefore, there is no possibility of a new accident being created. Also, an increase'in the functional test interval will'not create a malfunction of a different type than previously evaluated. No new equipment is being added to the plant and no change is being made in the way existing equipment is being operated and maintained.
3.
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The type of te:, ting performed and the actions taken if a snubber.were-to fail its. functional test remain unchanged.
The margin of-safety, inherent to the Technical Specifications and relating to-snubber surveillance requirements, will remain virtually unchanged.- This conclusion is based upon the fact that the proposed testing schedule defined in the Technical Specifications provides nearly the same margin of confidence as the present schedule. The Technical
l t
. Specification margin of safety remains unchanged.
In addition, there is no impact on the consequences of any accident, there can be no impact on any of the protective boundaries, and therefore, no impact on the safety limits.
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 t
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. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Directives Review 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 writter 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.
I
_____.____._.__-_m
.. w
. si d
c 1
' Li 4
By March 8,1993
.- the licensee may. file a request. for a hearing:
y 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_
j 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, :0C 20555= and -at:the local: public document room located at the Learning Resource. Center, Thames Valley State Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich,-Connecticut 06360.
If a-request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed:lby the above4 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; andL the-Secretary or the i
~
1 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. Jhe:
petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: ;p) Ine nature l _
~-wz.-
a---
.2-
-.-=-a.
e:,e.,
t
s._._-
.. _. - _ -. _. ~
7, w
w-t 4
5-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 upito'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 lof-the-bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts orJexpert 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 l
those.speciffe sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and ~on which the petitioner. intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
Patiticner must provide sufficientLinformation to show that a L
i f
e a
2 as-e 4
-,e a
w w.
e.
- E g
t 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, f
Those permitted to intervene become parties te the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the ordor 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 mde 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 Comission aay 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.
Normally, the Comission 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
1 1 result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Comission 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 coments 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 Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
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 Comission, 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 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 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 Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Gerald Garfield,.
Esquire, Day, Berry and Howard, City Place, Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499, attorney for the licensee.
i q
- c. 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 January 15, 1993, and supplemental information dated January 21, 1993, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Ruom, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, and at the local public document room located at the Learning Resource Center, Thames Valley State Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut 06360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of Februe.ry 1993.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,/
n Vernon L. Rooney, Ser or Project Manager Project Directorate A
Division of Reactor rejects - I-11 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
-