[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