ML20128P037

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to License DPR-21 & Proposed NSHC Determination & Opportunity for Hearing.Amend Would Modify Applicability Requirements for Certain Radiation Monitors

ML20128P037
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	10/10/1996
From:	Andersen J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20128P029	List: ML20128P026 ML20128P037
References
NUDOCS 9610170116
Download: ML20128P037 (10)

Text

. . . .- .. - . - . . - .. . - - - . , - . - . - - - - - . . - . - .

1 i

7590-01 4

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 2

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY j DOCKET NO. 50-245 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING t

j The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering

issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-21 issued to

Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNEC0/the licensee) for operation of the Hillstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit I located in Waterford, Connecticut.

l The proposed amendment would modify the applicability requirements for certain radiation monitors so that the radiation monitors are required to be operable only when secondary containment integrity is reouired to be operable; delineate when secondary containment integrity is required; modify standby gas I treatment operability requirements; make editorial corrections to clarify the i

configuration of the radiation monitors; and revise the associated Bases sections.

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 l

l l

9610170116 961010 PDR ADOCK 05000245 P PDR

d i

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of l 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 j has provided itr analysis of the issue of no significant hazards j consideration, which is presented below:

l Pursuant to 10CFR50.92, NNECO has reviewed the proposed changes and concludes that the changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration (SHC) since the proposed change satisfies the criteria in 10CFR50.92(c). That is, the prcposed changes do not:

4

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

l l The ptoposed changes do not significantly increase the l

probability of an accident since these changes only affect operability of equipment used for either identifying or mitigating accident conditions and have no impact on any i initiating events for analyzed accidents previously evaluated.

The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.2.E makes the operability requirements of the radiation monitors consister,t 1 with operability requirements of the systems they automatically l actuate and the Standard Technical Specifications NUREG-1433 (Rev i 1) operability requirements for these monitors. The safety function of these radiation monitors is to monitor the reactor building and the steam tunnel ventilation exhaust plenums, and the room air at the refueling floor area to provide prompt

! indication of a gross release of radioactive material and, if j setpoints are exceeded, actuate logic which initiates standby gas treatment and isolates normal ventilation. Conditions which

could produce significant radiological releases and necessitate

isolation of the reactor building and steam tunnel ventilation systems and initiation of the standby gas treatment system are only permitted to be established when secondary containment integrity is required. Administrative controls are established to ensure that secondary containment integrity is maintained when required to mitigcte radiological consequences of postulated accidents. Proper application of procedural administrative controls ensure that evolutions, which may result in significant release of fission products, (including those not specifically delineated in the proposed technical specification) are evaluated to determine if secondary containment is required. When secondary containment integrity is not required, the plant is prohibited from performing activities which may result in a significant radiological release and the potential for an analyzed radiological accident is minimized. Therefore, the need for these radiation monitors to be operable at all times,

]

i. i l

including those instance when either secondary containment I I integrity or operability of the standby gas treatment system are l j not required provides no additional safety benefit and can be j eliminated.  !

i 3 The proposed changes also ensure the requirements for the radiation monitors (Section 3.2.E), standby gas treatment system j

(Section 3.7.8), and secondary containment integrity (Section 3.7.C) are consistent.

! The proposed changes to the Technical Specification 3.7.B. J i

" Standby Gas Treatment System," ensure standby gas treatment  !

system operability is required whenever secondary containment i j integrity is required and ensures the operability requirements l

for the standby gas treatment system are specified for activities which have a potential of significant release of fission {

products. It maintains the requirement that standby gas I treatment system operability is required whenever secondary j containment integrity is not required. If secondary containment 4 integrity cannot be maintained, activities which have the  ;

potential of a significant radiological release are immediately l suspended and conditions established within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in which l secondary containment integrity is no longer required. Requiring l both trains of standby gas treatment system and three power j sources (either two onsite and one offsite or one onsite and two i offsite) provides adequate AC electrical power during a REFUELING !

OUTAGE. The operability requirements for the standby gas  !

treatment system and power supplies remain unaltered for the fuel l handling accident, the design bases accident during a REFUELING  ;

OUTAGE. Therefore, the consequences of the fuel handling '

accident, as analyzed, remain unaffected and the other less limiting transients remain bounded. t Currently, secondary containment integrity is required even when fuel is removed from the vessel if the control rods are not fully inserted. This requirement is not necessary for safety and can be eliminated. The proposed LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION i results in some cases where secondary containment is not required j when it would have been previously (e.g., mode switch in REFUEL with no fuel movement or withdrawing a single control rod with (

the vessel head installed). However, none of these cases would place the plant in a condition which would result in a i significant radiological release requiring secondary containment or standby gas treatment system to mitigate the release. For example, with the mode switch in REFUEL the refueling interlocks l would permit a single control rod to be withdrawn with the vessel head installed. The core design enscres that the reactor remains subcritical with the highest control rod worth withdrawn, therefore, a subcritical reactor with the vessel head installed has no potential for a significant radiological release.

i

! i.

I' Therefore, the proposed changes will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously

, evaluated.

l 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident since these changes only affect operability requirements for equipment used either to identify or mitigate accident conditions and have no impact on any initiating events which could result in a new or different kind of accident from accidents previously evaluated.

None of these changes affect precursor svents which could lead to a new or different kind of accident and therefore, these changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

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

The margin of safety provided by the existing technical specifications is not significantly reduced by the proposed changes. While the radiation monitor applicability requirements are being reduced, the radiation monitors, standby gas treatment system and secondary containment will continue to remain operable during conditions in which there is a potential for gross release of fission products. The proposed changes are consistent with the requirements for the standby gas treatment system initiation and the secondary containment isolations which are activated by these radiation monitors. There are no accidents postulated which necessitate the use of these radiation monitors when plant conditions do not require secondary containment integrity to be operable. Conservatism is added in the requirements for secondary containment integrity and an additional LIMITING CONDITION FOR OPERATION is provided to address the condition when secondary containment integrity cannot be met.

Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant 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 detennine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Ye-* 're

The Commission is seeking public coments 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, t'he 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 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 Comission take this action, it will publish in the FEDBAL 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.

Written coments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written coments may also be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flir+ North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4: 15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written coments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.

- - . .~ - -. . -..-. . . . _ _ . . . - . . . -- -. . - - . . . _ - -

I~

i The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene i is discussed below.

4 By November 18, 1996 , 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 l

request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a l l

l hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance

with the Commission's " Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" l j 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, and at the local public document roor 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 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

1 e

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 i

filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party j may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days i prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such j an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 1

l 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 j sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a l 1

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 j 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 l 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 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 participato 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 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Survices Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 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

. - .. -= -.

4

)

i l .

• i i

l telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-1 6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification i

l Number N1023 and the following message addressed to Phillip F. McKee

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 j 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 Gerald j Garfield, Esquire, Day, Berry & Howard, Counselors at Law, City Place, j l Hartford, CT, 06103-3499, attorney for the licensee.  !

{ Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, s..pplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be l 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 l 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

1 For further details with respect to this action, see the application for l I

amendment dated August 29, 1996, 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 room located at the i

l l

l l

)

1

.i Learning Resources Center, Three Rivers Comunity-Technical College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Connecticut, and the Waterford Library, ATTN: Vince Juliano, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY C6MMISSION l

/ i a 's W. Andersen, Project Manager Northeast Utilities Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

. \

l i

l l

l

+

l l

l