[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5541]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 10, 1994]


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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
 

Entergy Operations, Inc.; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment 
to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

[Docket No. 50-458]
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-47 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for operation 
of the River Bend Station, Unit 1, located in West Feliciana Parish, 
Louisiana.
    The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications 
(TS) for the main steam-positive leakage control system (MS-PLCS) and 
the penetration valve leakage control system (PVLCS) to be consistent 
with the requirements contained in NUREG-1434, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications, General Electric Plants (BWR/6).''
    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 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:
    1. The proposed change would not involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    This change request would allow 30 days of continued operation with 
one penetration valve leakage control system (PVLCS) subsystem 
inoperable. The PVLCS is required to mitigate the consequences of a 
design basis accident (DBA). The proposed change would increase the 
allowed outage time with one OPERABLE PVLCS.
    Based on the RBS Level 1 and Level 2 Individual Plant Examination 
(IPE), the loss of one train of PVLCS, concurrent with a DBA and 
subsequent radionuclide release, is an extremely low probability event 
(e.g., less than 1E-7 per year). This probability is less than NRC 
Safety Goal of 1E-6 per year for large releases following a core damage 
event. Because of the extremely low probability of the event, the 
increase in allowed outage time from seven days to 30 days does not 
represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of 
the DBA which PVLCS is intended to mitigate.
    The PVLCS is not an initiator of any previously analyzed accident. 
The configuration of one system inoperable is presently addressed by 
the specification and will not change an allowed operation. Because the 
operation is no different than previously allowed, the consequences of 
an event previously evaluated has not been increased. The probability 
of an event requiring the system has been evaluated and determined to 
be very low.
    In addition, the proposed changes address two subsystems 
inoperable. This change would allow seven days of continued operation 
with both main steam positive leakage control (MS-PLCS) and PVLCS 
subsystems inoperable. The MS-PLCS and PVLCS are not initiators of any 
previously analyzed accident. Therefore, these changes do not 
significantly increase the frequency of such accidents. This proposed 
change would allow temporary operation with no OPERABLE PVLCS or MS-
PLCS. Minor increases in containment leakage, such as the leakage 
through the MSIVs, have been found to have no significant impact on the 
risk to the public.
    Consequently, this change does not significantly increase the 
consequences of any previously analyzed accident.
    The increase to the probability of core damage as a result of the 
loss of long term ADS air supply backup has been evaluated and 
determined to be less than the NRC safety goal of 1E-6 and the NUMARC 
goal of 1E-7 for evaluation. Therefore there is not a significant 
increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new of 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed change to increase the allowed outage time from seven 
days to 30 days for one subsystem inoperable does not result in the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated. This change does not result in any changes to the 
equipment design or capabilities. Since the PVLCS mitigates the 
consequences of an accident and failure of this system cannot create an 
accident. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
analyzed accident.
    The change to allow two systems out of service has been proposed 
for PVLCS and MS-PLCS of 7 days and is consistent with the allowable 
out-of-service time specified in LCO 3.6.1.8 and 3.6.1.9 of NUREG-1434, 
``Standard Technical Specification General Electric Plants, BWR/6'' for 
these systems. This allowance is based on the low safety significance 
as discussed in NUREG-1273, ``Technical Findings and Regulatory 
Analysis for Generic Safety Issue II.E.4.3, ``Containment Integrity 
Check,'' and NUREG/CR-3539, ``Impact of Containment Building Leakage on 
LWR Accident Risk.''
    Although the proposed change allows further operation of the plant 
with equipment not capable of performing its safety function, they do 
not result in any changes to the equipment design or capabilities. Loss 
of the containment function does not impact the reactor coolant 
pressure boundary or its support systems; therefore, does not create 
the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously analyzed accident.
    Since the change to the long term air supply for ADS has been 
evaluated and the increase in core damage is below the NRC safety goal 
of 1E-6 and the NUMARC goal of 1E-7 for evaluation, this proposal 
should not be considered as a new event.
    3. The proposed change would not involve a reduction in the margin 
of safety.
    The proposed change to increase the allowed outage time from seven 
days to 30 days for one subsystem inoperable does not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety. The PVLCS is not an 
initiator of any previously analyzed accident. As stated above, the 
proposed change increases the allowed outage time for a system that is 
used to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The system continues 
to perform its intended safety function and the change in allowed 
outage time has a very small impact on plant risk. The configuration of 
one system inoperable is presently addressed by the specification and 
therefore will not change the previous margin of safety of an allowed 
operation. Because the operation is no different than previously 
allowed, the results of an event previously evaluated have not been 
increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change would also allow seven days of continued 
operation with both MS-PLCS and PVLCS inoperable. Minor increases in 
containment leakage such as the leakage through the MSIVs, as 
identified in NUREG-1273 and NUREG/CR-3539, have been found to have no 
significant impact on the risk to the public. Therefore, the proposed 
change does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety.
    The change to the long term ADS air supply has been determined not 
to add significant risk to the general public; therefore, the change 
does 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 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 
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 
Service, 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 11, 1994, 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 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 Government Documents Department, 
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. 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 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 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 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.
    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, 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 Suzanne C. Black, Director, Project 
Directorate IV-2: 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 Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and to Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 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 February 22, 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 Government Documents Department, 
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert G. Schaaf,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects, III/IV/V, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-5541 Filed 3-9-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M