[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19624-19626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10324]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-382]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; 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 No. 
NPF-38 issued to Entergy Operations Inc., (the licensee) for operation 
of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, located in St. Charles 
Parish, Louisiana.
    The proposed amendment would change Waterford 3 Technical 
Specifications by deleting Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1.3, Action 
(b) and its associated surveillance requirement. The current TS 3.7.1.3 
limiting condition for operation (LCO) allowes credit for an alternate 
supply for emergency feedwater (EFW) in the event the condensate 
storage pool (CSP) is unavailable as the primary source. Surveillance 
4.7.1.3.2 is being deleted since use of the Wet Cooling Tower (WCT) 
basins as the backup supply as described in the current Action (b) will 
no longer be allowed.
    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. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    As previously identified, the accidents for which the combined 
water inventory of the CSP and WCT basin is needed are tornado and 
natural circulation events. The combined inventory is also required 
during post-LOCA long term cooling until shutdown cooling is 
entered. CSP level is not a failure mode for any of these events. 
The contents of the CSP and one WCT basin are sufficient to meet 
plant needs for accident mitigation in each of these scenarios. 
Deletion of TS 3.7.1.3 Action (b) and the associated surveillance do 
not affect the volume of either the CSP or the WCT basin and will 
not affect the consequences of the accidents for which the CSP and a 
WCT basin are needed.
    In addition, all accident analyses assume that EFW is initially 
aligned to the CSP. No credit is taken for an initial alignment to 
the WCT basins. Thus removal of this action will not impact any 
analysis.
    As previously discussed, a catastrophic failure of the CSP 
concurrent with an EFW system demand is not a credible scenario. As 
a conservative measure, Waterford 3 has elected to incorporate 
administrative controls in its off-normal procedures to address this 
scenario.
    2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change create the possibility of a new or different type of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The CSP is used almost exclusively as the water supply for EFW. 
The only exceptions are its use as a makeup source for the CCW 
system, Emergency Diesel Generator Jacket Cooling Water System, Fuel 
Pool and Purification System, and Essential Chilled Water, which 
place a minimal demand on the pool. The possible failure modes that 
could keep the CSP from fulfilling its intended safety function as 
the only dedicated source of EFW are tank vent clogging, low tank 
level, and pump suction flashing.
    The CSP is equipped with an 8 in. vent line which penetrates the 
pool ceiling and terminates in the above room six feet above the 
floor. There is no isolation valve on the line, and there are no 
known sources of debris in the area which could clog such a large 
diameter pipe. Also, the pipe ends with a ``U''-bend, with the open 
end turned downwards. Accidental crimping of the thick walled pipe 
is not considered credible since the pipe is not within the travel 
path of any cranes, and is located in a congested area behind an 
instrument cabinet, out of the path of any fork lifts.
    The CSP is equipped with redundant, safety grade level 
indicators and TS 3.7.1.3 requires operators to verify tank level is 
within allowable limits every 12 hours.
    In addition, the CSP water remains at Reactor Auxiliary Building 
(RAB) ambient temperatures, usually below 90 deg.. There are no 
lines from hot, interfacing systems which connect to the lines 
between the CSP and pump suction.
    Therefore, the probability of these failure modes will not 
increase by the deletion of TS 3.7.1.3, Action (b). As such, it is 
not considered credible that tank level would be out of limits when 
a system demand occurred. Also, no new system connections or 
interactions are created by this change. Deletion of this TS action 
statement does not

[[Page 19625]]

create a new or different accident with regard to the CSP.
    An Emergency Feedwater Actuation Signal (EFAS) is initiated upon 
either a low steam generator level coincident with no low steam 
generator pressure or a low steam generator level coincident with 
high steam generator differential pressure to feed the steam 
generator with the highest pressure. CSP level does not affect 
initiation of an EFAS, therefore this proposed change does not 
create a new or different EFAS initiator.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this 
proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change will preserve the margin of safety. The CSP 
is unaffected by this change and will continue to perform its 
intended safety function as the water supply for EFW. The combined 
volumes of the CSP and one WCT basin are still available to perform 
their accident mitigation function. If the action statement for TS 
3.7.1.3 is entered, the plant will have 4 hours to restore the CSP 
to an operable condition or begin to shutdown.
    The WCT basins will continue to perform their intended safety 
function as the ultimate heat sink and the quantity of water 
available for that purpose is unaffected by this change. The WCT 
basins will still be available as an additional source for EFW 
during accident conditions; however, they will not be lined up as 
the primary source of EFW when the CSP is inoperable and they will 
not be credited to extend the allowed outage time for the CSP when 
the CSP is inoperable.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant 
reduction in a 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 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 May 22, 1997, 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 University of New Orleans Library, 
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122. 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

[[Page 19626]]

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 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 20555-0001, 
and to Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC, attorney 
for the licensee.
    Non-timely 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 April 11, 1997, 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 University of New Orleans Library, 
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70122.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of April, 1997.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-10324 Filed 4-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P