Entergy Operations, Inc.; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

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