[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19626-19628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10325]


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

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, (Waterford 3) located 
in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
    The proposed amendment would change Waterford 3 Technical 
Specifications by revising Technical Specification 3.6.2.2 and 
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.2 for the Containment Cooling System. 
The purpose of this amendment is to make the Technical Specification 
3.6.2.2 and Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.2 consistent with the 
containment cooling assumptions in the Waterford 3 containment 
analysis. Additionally, a Surveillance Requirement has been added to 
verify valves actuate on a Safety Injection Actuation Signal. A change 
to the Technical Specification Bases 3/4.3.6.2.2 has been included to 
support this change.
    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.
    The results of the reanalysis show that the consequences of an 
accident are not increased by this change to the required number of 
operable fan coolers and [Component Cooling Water] CCW flow to each 
fan cooler. Specifically, the acceptance criteria for peak 
containment pressure during an accident and pressure reduction at 24 
hours after the accident are met. The calculated peak pressure for 
the limiting [Main Steam Line Break] MSLB is less than the 
containment design pressure of 44 psig. The pressure at 24 hours 
after the start of the limiting [Loss of Coolant Accident] LOCA is 
less than one half of the peak pressure.
    Therefore, revising the containment fan cooler Technical 
Specification to require two fan coolers per train operable with a 
lower CCW flow rate of 1200 gpm to each will not adversely impact 
the consequences of accidents previously evaluated. The flow rate of 
1200 gpm is conservatively greater than the assumed flow rate in the 
analysis (1100 gpm). Furthermore, since the fan coolers are not an 
initiator of any event, the proposed change will not impact the 
probability of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated.
    An [Ultimate Heat Sink] UHS analysis has been performed of the 
effect of the lower CCW flows to the [Containment Fan Coolers] CFC 
and shutdown cooling heat exchanger used in this [Technical 
Specification Change Request] TSCR. The analysis has shown that the 
peak accident heat load and wet cooling tower basin water 
consumption is bounded by the existing UHS analysis.
    An analysis has been performed to determine the impact on 
environmentally qualified equipment based on the lower flows to the 
CFCs and shutdown cooling heat exchanger. The current temperature 
profile and containment peak pressure used to determine post 
accident operability on environmentally qualified equipment bounds 
this analysis.
    Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated.
    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 proposed change does not alter the operation of the fan 
coolers in a manner that

[[Page 19627]]

would create a new or different accident. Although both CFCs per 
train are now required to be operable with a lower CCW flow to each 
CFC, the manner in which the CFCs perform their safety function is 
not changed. There are no new system interactions that could lead to 
a different kind of accident. This change serves to clarify the 
specification with respect to the Waterford 3 safety analysis and 
provide further information in the Bases. The configuration required 
by the proposed specification is permitted by the existing 
specification.
    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 revises Technical Specification 3.6.2.2 and 
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.2.2 for the Containment Cooling System. 
This change revises the required number of fan coolers from one fan 
cooler per train to two fan coolers per train. This change also 
revises the surveillance flow requirement from 1325 gpm to a value 
consistent with containment cooling assumptions in Waterford 3 
containment analyses. This flow rate will be tested with the CCW 
system in the accident lineup to be consistent with the analysis 
assumptions.
    The containment cooling system is designed, as described in the 
containment depressurization and cooling system Technical 
Specification Bases, to maintain the post accident containment peak 
pressure below its design value of 44 psig. The system is also 
designed to reduce the containment pressure by a factor of 2 from 
its post-accident peak within 24 hours.
    The revised analyses done to support this Technical 
Specification change has shown that the peak containment pressure 
remains below 44 psig and the 24 hour pressure is less than half the 
peak. Therefore, the proposed change does not adversely impact 
margin of safety.
    The revised analysis has also shown that the containment peak 
temperature remains below the temperature provided in the Technical 
Specification 3.6.2.1 and 3.6.2.2 Bases.
    An UHS analysis has been performed of the effect of the lower 
CCW flows to the CFC and shutdown cooling heat exchanger used in 
this TSCR. The analysis has shown that the peak accident heat load 
and wet cooling tower basin water consumption is bounded by the 
existing UHS analysis.
    An analysis has been performed to determine the impact on 
environmentally qualified equipment based on the lower flows to the 
CFCs and shutdown cooling heat exchanger. The current temperature 
profile and containment peak pressure used to determine post 
accident operability on environmentally qualified equipment bounds 
this analysis.
    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, N.W., 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, N.W., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the University of New Orleans Library, 
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 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

[[Page 19628]]

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, N.W., 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, N.W., 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 16th 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. 97-10325 Filed 4-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P