[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-1215]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: January 18, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
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
[Docket No. 50-458]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-47 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for operation
of the River Bend Station located in St. Francisville, LA.
The proposed amendment would grant one-time extensions for certain
technical specification (TS) surveillances which are currently required
to be performed beginning February 16, 1994. The licensee is requesting
extension of the surveillance intervals because the current operating
cycle has been extended, impacting the required completion dates for
these surveillances. Performance of these surveillances within the
required intervals would require that the plant be placed in an
undesirable operating configuration, or would necessitate a plant
shutdown. The surveillances for which extensions have been requested
will be performed during the fifth refueling outage, scheduled to begin
on April 16, 1994.
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. The licensee's
amendment request dated December 8, 1993, contains a detailed list of
the specific surveillances for which it is requesting extensions. For
the purposes of addressing the no significant hazards consideration
determination, the staff has categorized the surveillances by groups in
the following discussion. The licensee's determination of no
significant hazards is summarized below:
1. The proposed change would not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The first group of surveillances includes calibration, logic system
functional testing (LSFT), and response time testing of reactor
protection system (RPS), isolation actuation system, and emergency core
cooling system (ECCS) instrumentation; and calibration of control rod
block, remote shutdown and accident monitoring, and feedwater system/
main turbine trip system instrumentation. The licensee identified
vendor and topical reports which support longer surveillance intervals
for certain instruments and elimination of surveillance tests from TS
for other instruments. The licensee also stated that observed drift
characteristics, as well as the presence of redundant and diverse
channels for most of the affected instrumentation, support extension of
these surveillance intervals. The affected surveillances are associated
with equipment that is also subject to channel checks and/or functional
tests which will continue to be performed during the extension period
and should ensure that these systems will perform as designed. Based on
the above, no significant increase in the probability or consequences
of a previously evaluated accident would occur as a result of extending
the surveillance intervals by the relatively short time periods
requested.
The next group of surveillances concern demonstration of automatic
isolation of reactor water cleanup (RWCU) system containment isolation
valves on receipt of an isolation test signal. Due to redundancy
provided in the design of the penetrations, periodic testing of the
containment isolation system performed during power operation, and the
short period of time for which the interval extension is requested, no
significant increase in the probability or consequences of a previously
evaluated accident would occur as a result of extending this
surveillance interval.
The third group of surveillances concern inspection, service tests,
and performance tests of dc batteries; and load tests of the battery
chargers. Due to the fact that the testing history for the batteries
and chargers has been good, the (nominally) weekly pilot cell data has
indicated no degradation, and the short period of time the interval is
being extended, no significant increase in the probability or
consequences of a previously evaluated accident would occur as a result
of extending these surveillance intervals.
The fourth group of surveillances concern calibration of RPS
electrical protection assembles (EPAs). Based on the inherent lack of
drift of the EPAs and the accuracy of the system logic, no significant
increase in the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated
accident would occur as a result of extending these surveillance
intervals.
The licensee also proposed reestablishment of the baseline for the
``N times 18 months'' cumulative surveillance interval for response
time testing by extending the cumulative surveillance interval to
coincide with the individual extensions discussed above. Extension of
the cumulative interval would not be for more than the individual
extensions requested. Due to the fact that the individual extensions
have been shown to present no significant increase in risk as discussed
above, no significant increase in the probability or consequences of a
previously evaluated accident would occur as a result of extending the
cumulative surveillance interval for response time testing.
2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The extension of the surveillance intervals will not result in any
changes in plant configuration or operation. Therefore, the extensions
will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any accident previously evaluated or analyzed.
3. The proposed change would not involve a significant reduction in
a margin of safety.
For the reasons cited in Criterion 1 above, the proposed changes
will not result in a significant reduction in the 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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be
delivered to room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue,
Bethesda, 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By February 17, 1994, 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 20555 and at the local
public document room located at the Government Documents Department,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. 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, 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 20555, 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 Suzanne C. Black, Director, Project
Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555: 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, and to Mark J.
Wetterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC
20005, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitioners 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 December 8, 1993, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the
local public document room located at Government Documents Department,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of January 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert G. Schaaf,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV/V, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-1215 Filed 1-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
