[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69726-69728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-30961]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-416]


Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, Inc., South 
Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy Mississippi, 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-29 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., System Energy Resources, 
Inc., South Mississippi Electric Power Association, and Entergy 
Mississippi, Inc. (Entergy) for operation of the Grand Gulf Nuclear 
Station, Unit 1 (GGNS), located in Claiborne County, Mississippi.
    By letter dated December 5, 2003, Entergy submitted a revised 
application for amendment to GGNS Technical Specification (TS) 3.3.6.1, 
``Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation Instrumentation,'' to add a 
provision to the applicability function that will eliminate the 
requirement that the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System Isolation, 
Reactor Vessel Water Level-Low, Level 3, be operable under certain 
conditions during refueling outages. Specifically, the proposed change 
requested in the original application dated May 12, 2003, would remove 
the requirement for this isolation function, specified in Table 
3.3.6.1-1, when the upper containment reactor cavity is at the High 
Water Level (HWL) condition specified in TS 3.5.2, ``Emergency Core 
Cooling Systems (ECCS) Shutdown.'' The revised application adds a new 
surveillance requirement (SR) (SR 3.3.6.1.9) to verify the water level 
in the upper containment pool is = 22 feet 8 inches above 
the reactor pressure vessel flange every four hours, and adds a 
footnote to Table 3.3.6.1-1, Item 5.b, for MODE 5 that states that the 
function is not required when the upper containment reactor cavity and 
transfer canal gates are removed and SR 3.3.6.1.9 is met. The proposed 
SR and footnote are only applicable in MODE 5. The May 12, 2003, 
application was previously noticed in the Federal Register on June 10, 
2003 (68 FR 34665).
    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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR), section 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. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in 
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    The proposed change revises the applicability requirement for 
the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) System Isolation function of the 
Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation Instrumentation during 
MODE 5 and adds a surveillance requirement that is invoked when 
specific conditions exist. The proposed surveillance requirement 
only enhances the ability of operating personnel to detect inventory 
loss associated with a draindown event. The change removes the 
requirement that the instrumentation be operable during certain 
conditions (high water level) during refueling outages. The 
isolation function is intended to mitigate reactor vessel draindown 
events by isolating the residual heat removal flow path at low 
reactor water level. Although draindown events during refueling 
operations are not specifically evaluated in the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), these events were evaluated in 
support of licensing actions for the Alternate Decay Heat Removal 
System. An additional evaluation supporting this change established 
that the RHR system automatic isolation was not needed to mitigate a 
draindown event given the possible drain paths and the time 
available for operators to terminate the draindown event. The 
probability that a draindown event will be initiated is unrelated to 
operability requirement for this

[[Page 69727]]

instrumentation, the associated isolation valves or the proposed 
surveillance. The evaluation determined that mitigating actions can 
be taken to identify and terminate all postulated draindown events 
prior to fuel uncovery. As a result, the probability of draindown 
events causing fuel uncovery and the potential for radiological 
releases has not significantly increased. The operation or failure 
of the shutdown cooling suction isolation does not contribute to the 
occurrence of an accident. No active or passive failure mechanisms 
that could lead to an accident are affected by the proposed change.
    The consequences of a vessel drainage event are not 
significantly increased by the proposed change. Entergy has 
evaluated various draindown and pumpdown events through the shutdown 
cooling flow path and determined that adequate time is available for 
operations personnel to identify and take action to mitigate such 
events such that adequate core cooling is maintained and a 
radiological release does not occur.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Response: No.
    Entergy has evaluated various draindown events through the 
shutdown cooling flow path and determined that adequate time is 
available for operations personnel to identify and take action to 
mitigate any events such that adequate core cooling is maintained. 
The proposed surveillance requirement only enhances the ability of 
operating personnel to detect inventory loss associated with a 
draindown event. With the containment refueling cavity flooded, 
sufficient inventory is available to allow operator action to 
terminate the inventory loss prior to reaching a low water level in 
the reactor. Installed equipment is not operated in a new or 
different manner; no new or different system interactions are 
created, and no new processes are introduced. No new failures have 
been created by the proposed changes.
    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility 
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety?
    Response: No.
    The proposed changes do not introduce any new setpoints at which 
protective or mitigative actions are initiated. No current setpoints 
are altered by this change. The design and functioning of the 
containment and drywell isolation function is also unchanged. The 
change simply modifies the applicability of the TS by removing the 
requirement that the RHR system isolation on low reactor vessel 
level be operable with the upper containment cavity flooded in MODE 
5. During MODE 5, the RHR system isolation mitigates postulated 
draindown events through the RHR system. The proposed surveillance 
requirement only enhances the ability of operating personnel to 
detect inventory loss associated with a draindown event and does not 
impact a margin of safety. Entergy has evaluated various draindown 
events through this flow path and determined that adequate time is 
available for operations personnel to identify and take action to 
mitigate such events such that adequate core cooling is maintained.
    Therefore, the proposed change does 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.
    This notification is based on the revised license amendment request 
dated December 5, 2003, and supercedes the original notification based 
on the request dated May 12, 2003, published in the Federal Register on 
June 10, 2003 (68 FR 34665).
    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. Documents may 
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By January 14, 2004, 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, located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, or electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If there are problems in 
accessing the document, contact the Public Document Room Reference 
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected]. 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

[[Page 69728]]

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 (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the 
above date. Because of the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail 
to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for 
leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the 
Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission 
to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A copy of the 
petition for leave to intervene and request for hearing should also be 
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and because of continuing 
disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile 
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to [email protected]. A 
copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to [insert attorney name and address], 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 May 12, 2003, as supplemented by letter 
dated December 5, 2003, which is available for public inspection at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area 
O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of December, 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bhalchandra K. Vaidya,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-30961 Filed 12-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P