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

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