[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 183 (Tuesday, September 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50605-50606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-25279]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-382]


Facility Operating License No. NPF-38, Entergy Operations, Inc.; 
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NFP-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 modify the Notes in Table 2.2-1 
(Reactor Protective Instrumentation Trip Setpoints Limits) and Table 
3.3-1 (Reactor Protective Instrumentation). A Bases change is being 
proposed 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 proposed changes modify the table notations for the 
10-4% Bistable in TS 2.2.1 and 3.3.1. The proposed 
changes to these trip bypass removal functions do not adversely 
impact any system, structure, or component design or operation in a 
manner that would result in a change in the frequency or occurrence 
of accident initiation. The reactor trip bypass removal functions 
are not accident initiators. System connections and the trip 
setpoints themselves are not affected by trip bypass removal 
setpoint variations.
    Since the hysteresis for the 10-4% Bistable is small, 
there is a negligible impact on the CEA withdrawal analyses. Revised 
analyses, accounting for slightly different bypass removal power 
levels caused by the bistable hysteresis, would result in negligible 
changes to the calculated peak power and heat flux for the pertinent 
CEA withdrawal events. Therefore, the consequences of any accident 
previously evaluated will not significantly change.
    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 trip bypass removal functions in question protect against 
possible reactivity events. The power, criticality levels, and 
possible bank withdrawals associated with these trip functions have 
already been evaluated. Therefore, all pertinent reactivity events 
have previously been considered. Slight differences in the power 
level at which the automatic trip bypass removal occurs can not 
cause a different kind of accident.
    There has been no changes to any plant system, structure, or 
component, nor will these changes reduce the ability of any of the 
safety-related equipment required to mitigate AOOs.
    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 safety function associated with the CPC and HLP trip 
functions are maintained. Since the hysteresis for the 
10-4% Bistable is small, there is a negligible impact on 
the CEA withdrawal analyses. Calculated peak power and heat flux are 
not significantly changed as a result of the bistable hysteresis. 
All acceptance criteria are still met for these events. There is no 
change to any margin of safety as a result of this change.
    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 Administrative 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 6D59, 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 October 22, 1998, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect

[[Page 50606]]

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, 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, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to N.S. Reynolds, Esq., Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, 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 11, 1998, 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 16th day of September 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy J. Polich,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-25279 Filed 9-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P