[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25003-25004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10664]



[[Page 25003]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-336]


Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, Et Al., Millstone Nuclear Power 
Station, Unit No. 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
DPR-65, issued to the Northeast Nuclear Energy Company, et al., (NNECO 
or the licensee), for operation of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, 
Unit No. 2, located in Waterford, Connecticut.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 
Sections: 3.3.2.1, ``Instrumentation--Engineered Safety Feature 
Actuation System Instrumentation''; 3.3.3.1, ``Instrumentation--
Monitoring Instrumentation--Radiation Monitoring''; 3.7.6.1, ``Plant 
Systems--Control Room Emergency Ventilation System''; 3.9.3.1, 
``Refueling Operations--Decay Time''; 3.9.4, ``Refueling Operations--
Containment Penetrations''; 3.9.9, ``Refueling Operations--Containment 
Radiation Monitoring''; 3.9.10, ``Refueling Operations--Containment 
Purge Valve Isolation System''; 3.9.13, ``Refueling Operations--Storage 
Pool Radiation Monitoring''; 3.9.14, ``Refueling Operations--Storage 
Pool Area Ventilation System--Fuel Movement''; 3.9.15, ``Refueling 
Operations--Storage Pool Area Ventilation System--Fuel Storage''; 
3.9.16.1, ``Refueling Operations--Shielded Cask''; 3.9.16.2, 
``Refueling Operations--Shielded Cask'; 3.9.17, ``Refueling 
Operations--Movement of Fuel in Spent Fuel Pool''; and 3.9.19.2, 
``Refueling Operations--Spent Fuel Pool--Storage Pattern,'' and add new 
TS 3.3.4, ``Containment Purge Valve Isolation Signal.'' The requested 
changes would make the TSs and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) 
consistent with new analyses of the fuel handling and cask drop 
accidents. The Index Pages and the Bases for these TSs would be 
modified to reflect these changes.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's amendment 
request dated December 14, 1999, as supplemented on February 11 and 
March 30, 2000.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed for the licensee to move new and 
spent fuel while the containment is open during refueling operations. 
As a result of the recovery effort for Millstone Unit No. 2, NNECO 
determined that the current analysis of a fuel handling accident inside 
containment is not valid since the current analysis is not conservative 
with respect to the amount of fuel damage that will occur. As a result, 
Millstone Unit No. 2 will be required to keep containment isolated 
during fuel movement inside containment until a revised analysis is 
approved by the Commission. With the containment isolated, high 
temperature and humidity conditions create an adverse environment for 
individuals working inside containment. This type of environment is a 
personnel safety concern and can increase the potential for human 
errors. In addition, the revised analysis includes a provision to 
maintain the personnel air lock doors open under administrative 
control. This will greatly simplify normal entry and egress. This 
provision will also decrease the time necessary to evacuate containment 
in the event of a fuel handling accident, thereby decreasing personnel 
exposure.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its assessment of the potential 
environmental impacts associated with the TS. These TS changes are 
supported by a revised fuel handling analyses and cask drop accident 
analyses. The impact of the above proposed TS changes has been 
evaluated by the Commission in consideration for approval of the 
changes and supporting analyses. The TS change will not significantly 
increase the probability of accidents, no changes are being made in the 
types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no 
significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative 
occupational radiation exposure. The consequences of the postulated 
accidents, related to fuel handling and cask drop accidents, will be 
greater than previously evaluated. However, the consequences remain 
well within Part 100 doses (25 percent of 10 CFR Section 100.11(a)(1)) 
for offsite releases. Therefore, the TS changes will not significantly 
increase the consequences of any fuel handling or cask drop accidents. 
In addition, while the TS change described is a substantial change, its 
efficacy has been demonstrated in other operating facilities. The TS 
change will not significantly increase the probability or consequences 
of accidents. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with this 
proposed TS amendment.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
amendment does involve features located entirely within the restricted 
area as defined in 10 CFR part 20. It does not affect non-radiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the 
Commission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no significant change in 
current environmental impacts. Such action would not enhance the 
protection of the environment and would result in unjustified hardship 
to the licensee. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the 
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on April 25, 2000, the staff 
consulted with the Connecticut State official, Michael Firsick of the 
Division of Radiation, Department of Environmental Protection, 
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State 
official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission 
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated December 14, 1999, as supplemented by letters 
dated February 11 and March 30, 2000, which is available for public 
inspection at the

[[Page 25004]]

Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW., Washington, DC. Publically available records will be accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS) Public Library component of the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov> (the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of April 2000.

    For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jacob I. Zimmerman,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 00-10664 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P