[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22987]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 16, 1994]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-458]

 

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

    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 (RBS), located in West Feliciana 
Parish.
    The proposed amendment would provide the licensee the ability to 
search and determine the location, while at power, of leaking fuel 
bundles within the reactor core, by modifying Technical Specification 
(TS) 3.10.2. This modification adds the rod withdrawal limiter notch 
constraints as one of the items that can be bypassed to allow 
continuous rod withdrawal, in addition to adding fuel power suppression 
testing as one of the tests that can be performed while the rod 
withdrawal limiter is in the bypassed condition.
    Entergy Operations, Inc. has requested the amendment at this time 
due to the fact that a small fuel leak was recently identified to exist 
in the reactor core at RBS. As a result of this leak the licensee has 
identified an increase in off-gas activity and off-site dose. Although 
these increases have not exceeded RBS off-site dose limits, the 
potential exists for further fuel degradation caused by either normal 
power changes, which are needed to perform various TS surveillance 
tests, or inadvertent power excursions. Finally, should the leaking 
fuel bundle continue to degrade, RBS will be forced to de-rate to 
maintain off-gas activity within TS requirements. This could ultimately 
result in forcing the plant to shutdown to locate and remove the 
leaking fuel. Entergy Operations, Inc. has determined that if the 
location of the fuel leak can be identified, actions could be taken to 
suppress the leak, and to prevent further degradation. As a result, 
Entergy Operations, Inc. believes that the circumstances described 
above meets the requirements for emergency action per 10 CFR 
50.91(a)(5).
    The licensee's request was reviewed by the Commission and was found 
not to meet the requirements for emergency action as specified in 10 
CFR 50.91(a)(5), but it was determined that the licensee's concerns 
were valid and did merit exigent action as specified in 10 CFR 
50.91(a)(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.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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 request does not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The event of concern is the rod withdrawal error at power, which 
is assumed to occur when the highest worth control rod is withdrawn 
while at a limiting critical power ratio condition. The rod 
withdrawal limiter provides protection for control rod withdrawal 
error events. The purpose of the rod withdrawal limiter is to limit 
control rod withdrawal to preclude a violation of a fuel design 
limit.
    Administrative controls for bypassing the rod withdrawal limiter 
constraints in the rod pattern control system will include; direct 
control to be maintained and an approved procedure to be used to 
control the bypassing of individual control rods in the rod pattern 
control system. A test specific analysis will be performed assuming 
the rod withdrawal error occurs and a test pattern will be 
administratively imposed (i.e. controlled by procedure) that 
precludes any violation of fuel safety limits.
    Performance of the power suppression testing with rod withdrawal 
limiter notch constraints bypassed will be more conservative since 
the bypassed control rod will not be withdrawn past its original 
pre-test position. The expected test conditions for which the power 
suppression test will be performed will also be much less than the 
assumed limiting thermal limit conditions expected by the safety 
analysis. therefore, the evolution is less severe than that assumed 
in the safety analysis.
    If an operator continuously withdraws a previously partially 
inserted control rod to its original position or beyond, an analysis 
will show there is no increase in the consequences of a rod 
withdrawal error of the type described in the basis for Technical 
Specification 3.10.2. Therefore, the rod pattern control system 
sequence constraints are not required for this special test, and the 
operation of the plant will remain as previously analyzed with the 
response of the plant within the limits of the analyses.
    (2) The request does not create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    Performance of the power suppression testing performed under the 
proposed change will be more conservative than previously reviewed 
events since the rod pattern control system bypassed control rod 
will not be withdrawn past its original pre-test position. 
Therefore, the power suppression testing evolution is less severe 
than that assumed in the safety analysis and the response of the 
plant will remain within previous analysis.
    The positioning of control rods will be in conformance with 
applicable safety analysis; the generic rod withdrawal error 
analysis or with a special analysis, to ensure that the conclusions 
of the rod withdrawal error analysis remains supported. The 
maintenance of these analysis limits will be through the use of 
administrative controls.
    The use of operational control in lieu of control rod blocks 
will assure this analysis remains supported. This action is 
consistent with present allowances in Technical Specification 
3.10.2. Therefore the above administrative controls ensure that 
positioning and movement of bypassed control rods remain within the 
bounds of the previous analysis.
    (3) The request does not involve a significant reduction in the 
margin of safety.
    Technical Specifications currently allow bypassing a single 
control rod for the purpose of fully withdrawing the control rod to 
perform the four tests specified in Technical Specification 3.10.2 
The margin of safety associated with the bypassing and withdrawal of 
control rods is established in the Technical Specifications for 
control rod scram time testing. Also the controls being placed on 
power suppression testing will assure fuel safety limits are met. 
Therefore, the margin of safety associated with power suppression 
testing is enveloped by the margin of safety defined for current 
control rod testing.
    Therefore, the analysis, the hardware controls, and the 
administrative requirements all support and meet the requirements of 
General Design Criteria 10, Fuel Design Limits are not exceeded; 25, 
Protection System requirements for Reactivity; and 29, Protection 
against Anticipated Operational Occurrences.

    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 15 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 15-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 15-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. 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 
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 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville 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 October 17, 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 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 a 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 relay 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day 
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the 
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is 
requested, 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 determinations 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 William D. Beckner: 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 Weterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., 
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 September 8, 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 13th day of September 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ramon V. Azua,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-22987 Filed 9-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M