[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 16, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18712-18714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9315]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-390]
Tennessee Valley Authority; 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-90, issued to Tennessee Valley authority (TVA the licensee), for
operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1, located in Rhea
County, Tennessee.
The proposed amendment would revise, for one time only, a portion
of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.5.2.3 of the Watts Bar Technical
Specifications (TS) for the emergency core cooling system (ECCS). The
revision would extend, until the refueling outage in the fall of 2003,
the verification that the ECCS safety injection hot leg injection lines
are full of water. SR 3.5.2.3 currently requires a verification
frequency of 31 days.
The reason for the exigency is due to an emergent issue that
occurred when recent ultrasonic testing of the safety injection system
hot leg injection piping identified a quantity of gas at the piping
high points. TVA stated that it could not have reasonably avoided this
exigency. Until questions were raised on the way this SR was performed,
TVA had no indication that the safety injection system hot leg
injection lines had accumulated gas.
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
[[Page 18713]]
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?
No. The design function of the emergency core cooling system
(ECCS) is to provide core cooling and reactivity control for various
design bases accidents. With gas potentially entrained in the safety
injection system hot leg injection piping, the primary
considerations would be maintenance of adequate core cooling and
prevention of water hammer resulting from initiation of flow to the
reactor core for mitigation of a design basis event. In the event of
a postulated large break loss of coolant accident (LBLOCA), the
reactor coolant system (RCS) will de-pressurize rapidly, ECCS
injection from the refueling water storage tank (RWST) will occur,
followed by cold leg recirculation, and then hot leg recirculation.
No flow will exist in the hot leg injection piping until hot leg
recirculation is initiated.
TVA reviewed the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) vendor's
previous bounding evaluation performed on the effects of injecting
the nitrogen gas contained in the four safety injection system
accumulators into the RCS following a LOCA. The mass of nitrogen for
the accumulators assumed to be injected into the RCS is
significantly greater than the mass of gas that could reasonably be
expected to exist in the safety injection hot leg injection lines.
Therefore, the injection of the postulated gas in the hot leg
injection lines would have an insignificant effect on the cooldown
of the RCS in the hot leg recirculation mode.
If a layer of gas existed, it would flow to the core by mixing
with the water in the line. If a solid bubble were conservatively
assumed with the RCS depressurized, the pressure from the pump would
push any entrained gas to the RCS hot legs as the hot leg injection
valves opened and the safety injection pump came up to operating
speed. The two separated water volumes would travel to the RCS hot
legs at near the same velocity and would not impact one another. No
significant water hammer would occur.
For the design basis small break LOCA (SBLOCA) and the SBLOCA
that is smaller than the design basis 4-inch pipe size break, the
hot leg swapover is the same, although delayed, for the SBLOCA
scenario as for the LBLOCA. No significant water hammer would 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?
No. The proposed change to the WBN TS and its associated bases
do not introduce any new accident initiator mechanisms. The
exclusion of hot leg injection piping from the ECCS water inventory
surveillance does not cause the initiation of any accident nor
create any new credible limiting single failure. Further, the change
does not result in any event previously deemed incredible being made
credible since, as discussed above, there are no new adverse impacts
associated with the introduction of gas into the reactor core from
those previously evaluated. Further, there is no adverse impact
created by a potential water hammer situation.
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.
No. The exclusion of safety injection system hot leg injection
piping from the ECCS water inventory surveillance does not result in
a condition where the design, material, and construction standards
that were acceptable prior to this change are altered. The potential
to introduce gas from the hot leg injection piping into the reactor
core during postulated large and small break LOCA accidents does not
adversely affect design assumptions for emergency core cooling or
reactivity control. Since adverse water hammer events are not
postulated, the proposed changes to TS and its associated Bases will
have no affect on the availability, operability, or performance of
the WBN ECCS systems. Therefore, the subject change does not involve
a significant reduction in 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 14 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 14-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 14-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 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, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
By May 16, 2003, 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, and available electronically on the Internet at the NRC Web
site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. 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
[[Page 18714]]
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 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 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 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, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the
above date. Because of 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
request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 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 General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400
West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, 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 April 8, 2003, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically 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 in Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of April, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 03-9315 Filed 4-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P