[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 154 (Thursday, August 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41431-41434]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-20214]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-390]


Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Notice of 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 Nos. 
NFP-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the licensee) 
for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1 located in 
Rhea County, Tennessee.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
3.6.12 to allow a one-time extension of the three month surveillance 
requirement (SR) for the ice condenser lower inlet doors to coincide 
with the plant mid-cycle outage. Specifically, this proposed amendment 
would add notes to SRs 3.6.12.3, 3.6.12.4, and 3.6.12.5 and their 
respective bases to state, ``The 3-month performance due September 9, 
1996, (per SR 3.0.2) may be extended until October 21, 1996.
    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

[[Page 41432]]

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) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The four previous performances of SR 3.6.12.3 and 3.6.12.4 have 
all been successful. The most recent performance of SR 3.6.12.5 on 
May 17, 1996, was successful. However, because a previous 
performance of SR 3.6.12.5 on May 13, 1996, had identified several 
doors which did not pass portions of the surveillance, the results 
of the May 13, 1996, performance were reviewed in detail.
    Conduct of the May 13, 1996, surveillance yielded initial ``as-
found'' test results which indicate that 15 of the 48 lower inlet 
doors did not meet the 40 degrees open position opening torque 13 by 
an average of 2.8 percent, one by 13 percent and one by 23 percent). 
This has been evaluated by TVA and Westinghouse as to the potential 
effect on current design basis analysis. The review also addressed 
three doors which exceeded the overall friction criteria by 0.3 
percent. The evaluation consisted of a review of the Subcompartment 
analysis, Long-Term LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] Containment 
analysis, Long-Term MSLB [main steamline break] Containment 
analysis, Maximum Reverse Differential Pressure analysis, and Deck 
Bypass. The result of these analyses, indicates that the ``as-
found'' deviations in ice condenser inlet door opening performance 
are still bounded by the current licensing design basis containment 
related accident analysis. In addition, since the ``as-left'' 
conditions were within the TS requirements and a subsequent 
performance on May 17, 1996, did not identify any deficiencies, 
justification exists to allow extension of the 3-month surveillance 
for the ice condenser lower inlet doors until the plant mid-cycle 
outage scheduled for October 1996.
    Other considerations to support this justification for 
surveillance extension, are the initial ice mass relative to TS 
requirements in the WBN ice condenser, and the probability of core 
damaging small break LOCAs requiring Ice Condenser function during 
the extension period.
    In a supplemental letter dated April 15, 1996, regarding WBN's 
Ice Bed and Flow Channel inspection Surveillance Frequencies 
amendment request, TVA documented the initial ice loading for the 
WBN unit ice condenser was 2,877,685 lbs. This value is 473,885 lbs 
more (about 20 percent) than the currently approved TS value of 
2,403,800 lbs provided for an 18-month surveillance interval, and 
752,685 lbs greater (about 31 percent) than the safety analysis 
value of 2,125,000 lbs. For the LBLOCA [larege break loss-of-coolant 
accident] the doors would have been expected to open as designed, 
considering that all surveillances since fuel load have indicated 
that all doors passed the (SR) 3.6.12.4 test requiring an opening 
torque of 675 inch lbs.
    For the small break LOCA, door opening torque at the 40 degrees 
open position becomes important to avoid steam maldistribution 
effects. As stated previously, one surveillance had two doors that 
did not meet the torque criteria for the mid position by 13 percent 
and 23 percent, respectively (one of two bay 3 doors and one of two 
bay 5 doors). Several doors also exceeded the criteria by an average 
of only 2.8 percent. Neglecting these minor exceedances, and 
conservatively assuming both bay 3 and both bay 5 doors did not 
open, only 162 ice baskets representing 240,442 lbs of ice would 
have been unavailable during the event. This is considerably less 
than the excess margin of ice above the TS requirement for the more 
challenging large break LOCA. This margin would allow for the 
failure of 8 doors associated with 4 additional bays. In addition, 
total blockage would not be likely since the steam/air mixture would 
reach the impacted bays from adjacent bays or via the operational 
doors in the two bays of interest. Therefore, it is concluded that 
the exceedances observed were not significant for the small break 
LOCA.
    Another consideration for surveillance interval extension, is 
the likelihood of the need for the tested components during the 
period of the extension. In order to quantify the potential for a 
SBLOCA [small break loss-of-coolant accident] occurring during the 
42 day period of time being requested for the extension of the 3-
month surveillance interval, the probability of selected initiating 
events resulting in core damage occurring during the period was 
evaluated. During the 42-day period, the probability of small LOCAs 
resulting core damage was 1.3E-06, and the probability of small 
break LOCAs requiring ice condenser function was 3.3E-03. Therefore, 
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment 
(extension of the 3-month surveillance for the ice condenser lower 
inlet doors until the plant mid-cycle outage scheduled for October 
1996), when considering the magnitude of the deviations observed in 
the May 13, 1996, surveillance testing, the sensitivity to the 
containment related analysis, and other physical/technical 
considerations discussed in the preceding text, would not involve a 
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously 
evaluated nor their respective consequences.
    (2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed extension of the surveillance interval affects only 
the operability confidence associated with the lower ice doors. It 
has no impact on systems or components, the failure of which could 
initiate a new design basis accident. It is concluded, therefore, 
that no new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated is created by the proposed amendment.
    (3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in margin of 
safety.
    The preceding text (No significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination questions 1 & 2) covers TVA's evaluation of test data 
from the May 13, 1996, surveillance. This evaluation addresses the 
associated LOCAs requiring the ice condenser function, and the 
comparison of the initial WBN ice condenser ice loading versus 
maximum potential loss of ice bed usage. This discussion is 
applicable to the review to determine if a significant reduction in 
margin of safety will occur with operation of the WBN facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment.
    This review determined that there would have been essentially no 
unavailability of the lower inlet doors for a LBLOCA. For the 
conditions found, the current TS ice mass of 2,403,800 lbs would 
have still been met, with the margin between TS and design basis ice 
mass of 2,125,000 lbs still maintained. For smaller breaks, the 
additional ice would more than make up for any maldistribution 
caused by any friction increase in the doors.
    A Westinghouse evaluation of the deficiencies identified during 
the May 13, 1996, surveillance performance indicates that 
substantial margin exists for the licensing basis subcompartment 
analysis, Long-Term LOCA Containment Integrity analysis, Long-Term 
MSLB Containment Integrity analysis, Maximum Reverse Differential 
Pressure analysis, and concludes that the current licensing analyses 
remain bounding even without the immediate correction and subsequent 
reverification on May 17, 1996. Therefore, the proposed amendment 
would not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
    In order to quantify the potential for a SBLOCA during the 
period of time being requested for extension of the 3-month 
surveillance interval, the probability of selected initiating events 
which result in core damage occurring during the period was 
evaluated. For the probability of selected small break LOCAs 
resulting in core damage, the probability was 1.3E-06 and for 
probability of a small break LOCA was 3.3E-03. These event 
probabilities are small enough to conclude that the margin of safety 
has not been decreased by the proposed amendment.
    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

[[Page 41433]]

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 Chief, Rules 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By September 9, 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 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, and at the local public 
document room located at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 
Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. 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 20555-0001, 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, 
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 Mr. Frederick J. Hebdon: 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 20555-0001, 
and to General Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, ET 10H, 400 West 
Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, 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).

[[Page 41434]]

    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated July 31, 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 Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001 
Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of August 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ronald W. Hernan,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-20214 Filed 8-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P