[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53660-53661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27237]


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

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 3.3.3.7.3 (TSs) and Surveillance Requirement 4.3.3.7.3 
for the broad range gas detection system. A change to the TS Basis 3/
4.3.3.7 has been included to support this change. This change to the 
TSs is necessary due to a potential unreviewed safety question 
identified during final review prior to installation of a new broad 
range gas detection system approved by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Staff on August 19, 1997 (Amendment 133). In effect, Entergy 
Operations is requesting that the TSs and associated Basis for the 
broad range gas detection system that were in effect prior to Amendment 
133 be retained instead of implementing the approved Amendment 133.
    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 broad range gas detection system has no effect on the 
accidents analyzed in Chapter 15 of the Final Safety Analysis 
Report. The habitability of the control room will be unchanged by 
use of the currently installed monitoring system and this change to 
the Technical Specifications. Since this proposed change will make 
operation of the facility the same as before Amendment 133, the 
probability and consequences of an accident associated with this 
change have been previously evaluated.
    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 Technical Specification change in itself does not 
change the design or configuration of the plant. Since this proposed 
change will make operation of the facility the same as it was before 
Amendment 133, no new or different type of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated will be created.
    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 broad range gas detection system has no effect on a margin 
of safety as defined by Section 2 of the Technical Specifications. 
The habitability of the control room will be unchanged from the 
configuration of the currently installed detection system and this 
change to the Technical Specifications. The margin of safety remains 
unchanged from the original licensing basis of the plant.
    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 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.

[[Page 53661]]

    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By November 14, 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, 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 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: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, 
by the above date. 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 N.S. Reynolds, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC, 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 October 7, 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 8th day of October 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-27237 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P