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

Entergy Operations, Inc.; 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, Unit 1, located in West Feliciana Parish,

Louisiana.

The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications

(TS) for the main steam-positive leakage control system (MS-PLCS) and

the penetration valve leakage control system (PVLCS) to be consistent

with the requirements contained in NUREG-1434, ``Standard Technical

Specifications, General Electric Plants (BWR/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.

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, which is presented

below:

1. The proposed change would not involve a significant increase in

the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

This change request would allow 30 days of continued operation with

one penetration valve leakage control system (PVLCS) subsystem

inoperable. The PVLCS is required to mitigate the consequences of a

design basis accident (DBA). The proposed change would increase the

allowed outage time with one OPERABLE PVLCS.

Based on the RBS Level 1 and Level 2 Individual Plant Examination

(IPE), the loss of one train of PVLCS, concurrent with a DBA and

subsequent radionuclide release, is an extremely low probability event

(e.g., less than 1E-7 per year). This probability is less than NRC

Safety Goal of 1E-6 per year for large releases following a core damage

event. Because of the extremely low probability of the event, the

increase in allowed outage time from seven days to 30 days does not

represent a significant increase in the probability or consequences of

the DBA which PVLCS is intended to mitigate.

The PVLCS is not an initiator of any previously analyzed accident.

The configuration of one system inoperable is presently addressed by

the specification and will not change an allowed operation. Because the

operation is no different than previously allowed, the consequences of

an event previously evaluated has not been increased. The probability

of an event requiring the system has been evaluated and determined to

be very low.

In addition, the proposed changes address two subsystems

inoperable. This change would allow seven days of continued operation

with both main steam positive leakage control (MS-PLCS) and PVLCS

subsystems inoperable. The MS-PLCS and PVLCS are not initiators of any

previously analyzed accident. Therefore, these changes do not

significantly increase the frequency of such accidents. This proposed

change would allow temporary operation with no OPERABLE PVLCS or MS-

PLCS. Minor increases in containment leakage, such as the leakage

through the MSIVs, have been found to have no significant impact on the

risk to the public.

Consequently, this change does not significantly increase the

consequences of any previously analyzed accident.

The increase to the probability of core damage as a result of the

loss of long term ADS air supply backup has been evaluated and

determined to be less than the NRC safety goal of 1E-6 and the NUMARC

goal of 1E-7 for evaluation. Therefore there is not a significant

increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new of

different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed change to increase the allowed outage time from seven

days to 30 days for one subsystem inoperable does not result in the

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated. This change does not result in any changes to the

equipment design or capabilities. Since the PVLCS mitigates the

consequences of an accident and failure of this system cannot create an

accident. Therefore, this proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously

analyzed accident.

The change to allow two systems out of service has been proposed

for PVLCS and MS-PLCS of 7 days and is consistent with the allowable

out-of-service time specified in LCO 3.6.1.8 and 3.6.1.9 of NUREG-1434,

``Standard Technical Specification General Electric Plants, BWR/6'' for

these systems. This allowance is based on the low safety significance

as discussed in NUREG-1273, ``Technical Findings and Regulatory

Analysis for Generic Safety Issue II.E.4.3, ``Containment Integrity

Check,'' and NUREG/CR-3539, ``Impact of Containment Building Leakage on

LWR Accident Risk.''

Although the proposed change allows further operation of the plant

with equipment not capable of performing its safety function, they do

not result in any changes to the equipment design or capabilities. Loss

of the containment function does not impact the reactor coolant

pressure boundary or its support systems; therefore, does not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any

previously analyzed accident.

Since the change to the long term air supply for ADS has been

evaluated and the increase in core damage is below the NRC safety goal

of 1E-6 and the NUMARC goal of 1E-7 for evaluation, this proposal

should not be considered as a new event.

3. The proposed change would not involve a reduction in the margin

of safety.

The proposed change to increase the allowed outage time from seven

days to 30 days for one subsystem inoperable does not involve a

significant reduction in the margin of safety. The PVLCS is not an

initiator of any previously analyzed accident. As stated above, the

proposed change increases the allowed outage time for a system that is

used to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The system continues

to perform its intended safety function and the change in allowed

outage time has a very small impact on plant risk. The configuration of

one system inoperable is presently addressed by the specification and

therefore will not change the previous margin of safety of an allowed

operation. Because the operation is no different than previously

allowed, the results of an event previously evaluated have not been

increased. Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The proposed change would also allow seven days of continued

operation with both MS-PLCS and PVLCS inoperable. Minor increases in

containment leakage such as the leakage through the MSIVs, as

identified in NUREG-1273 and NUREG/CR-3539, have been found to have no

significant impact on the risk to the public. Therefore, the proposed

change does not result in a significant reduction in a margin of

safety.

The change to the long term ADS air supply has been determined not

to add significant risk to the general public; therefore, the change

does not involve 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

Service, 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 April 11, 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: 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 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 February 22, 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 3rd day of March 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. 94-5541 Filed 3-9-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M