[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-22987]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-458]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; 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-47, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of the River Bend Station (RBS), located in West Feliciana
Parish.
The proposed amendment would provide the licensee the ability to
search and determine the location, while at power, of leaking fuel
bundles within the reactor core, by modifying Technical Specification
(TS) 3.10.2. This modification adds the rod withdrawal limiter notch
constraints as one of the items that can be bypassed to allow
continuous rod withdrawal, in addition to adding fuel power suppression
testing as one of the tests that can be performed while the rod
withdrawal limiter is in the bypassed condition.
Entergy Operations, Inc. has requested the amendment at this time
due to the fact that a small fuel leak was recently identified to exist
in the reactor core at RBS. As a result of this leak the licensee has
identified an increase in off-gas activity and off-site dose. Although
these increases have not exceeded RBS off-site dose limits, the
potential exists for further fuel degradation caused by either normal
power changes, which are needed to perform various TS surveillance
tests, or inadvertent power excursions. Finally, should the leaking
fuel bundle continue to degrade, RBS will be forced to de-rate to
maintain off-gas activity within TS requirements. This could ultimately
result in forcing the plant to shutdown to locate and remove the
leaking fuel. Entergy Operations, Inc. has determined that if the
location of the fuel leak can be identified, actions could be taken to
suppress the leak, and to prevent further degradation. As a result,
Entergy Operations, Inc. believes that the circumstances described
above meets the requirements for emergency action per 10 CFR
50.91(a)(5).
The licensee's request was reviewed by the Commission and was found
not to meet the requirements for emergency action as specified in 10
CFR 50.91(a)(5), but it was determined that the licensee's concerns
were valid and did merit exigent action as specified in 10 CFR
50.91(a)(6).
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.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine 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) The request does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The event of concern is the rod withdrawal error at power, which
is assumed to occur when the highest worth control rod is withdrawn
while at a limiting critical power ratio condition. The rod
withdrawal limiter provides protection for control rod withdrawal
error events. The purpose of the rod withdrawal limiter is to limit
control rod withdrawal to preclude a violation of a fuel design
limit.
Administrative controls for bypassing the rod withdrawal limiter
constraints in the rod pattern control system will include; direct
control to be maintained and an approved procedure to be used to
control the bypassing of individual control rods in the rod pattern
control system. A test specific analysis will be performed assuming
the rod withdrawal error occurs and a test pattern will be
administratively imposed (i.e. controlled by procedure) that
precludes any violation of fuel safety limits.
Performance of the power suppression testing with rod withdrawal
limiter notch constraints bypassed will be more conservative since
the bypassed control rod will not be withdrawn past its original
pre-test position. The expected test conditions for which the power
suppression test will be performed will also be much less than the
assumed limiting thermal limit conditions expected by the safety
analysis. therefore, the evolution is less severe than that assumed
in the safety analysis.
If an operator continuously withdraws a previously partially
inserted control rod to its original position or beyond, an analysis
will show there is no increase in the consequences of a rod
withdrawal error of the type described in the basis for Technical
Specification 3.10.2. Therefore, the rod pattern control system
sequence constraints are not required for this special test, and the
operation of the plant will remain as previously analyzed with the
response of the plant within the limits of the analyses.
(2) The request does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Performance of the power suppression testing performed under the
proposed change will be more conservative than previously reviewed
events since the rod pattern control system bypassed control rod
will not be withdrawn past its original pre-test position.
Therefore, the power suppression testing evolution is less severe
than that assumed in the safety analysis and the response of the
plant will remain within previous analysis.
The positioning of control rods will be in conformance with
applicable safety analysis; the generic rod withdrawal error
analysis or with a special analysis, to ensure that the conclusions
of the rod withdrawal error analysis remains supported. The
maintenance of these analysis limits will be through the use of
administrative controls.
The use of operational control in lieu of control rod blocks
will assure this analysis remains supported. This action is
consistent with present allowances in Technical Specification
3.10.2. Therefore the above administrative controls ensure that
positioning and movement of bypassed control rods remain within the
bounds of the previous analysis.
(3) The request does not involve a significant reduction in the
margin of safety.
Technical Specifications currently allow bypassing a single
control rod for the purpose of fully withdrawing the control rod to
perform the four tests specified in Technical Specification 3.10.2
The margin of safety associated with the bypassing and withdrawal of
control rods is established in the Technical Specifications for
control rod scram time testing. Also the controls being placed on
power suppression testing will assure fuel safety limits are met.
Therefore, the margin of safety associated with power suppression
testing is enveloped by the margin of safety defined for current
control rod testing.
Therefore, the analysis, the hardware controls, and the
administrative requirements all support and meet the requirements of
General Design Criteria 10, Fuel Design Limits are not exceeded; 25,
Protection System requirements for Reactivity; and 29, Protection
against Anticipated Operational Occurrences.
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 15 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 15-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 15-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. 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 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
20555.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By October 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 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 a 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 relay 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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 determinations 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 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, and
to Mark Weterhahn, Esq., Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20005, 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 8, 1994, 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 September 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ramon V. Azua,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-22987 Filed 9-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M