# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6074

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Uncategorized Document
- **Published:** March 16, 1994

## Text

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-458]

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

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, (RBS) located in West Feliciana
Parish, Louisiana.
The proposed amendment would revise the technical specifications in
accordance with the guidance provided by Generic Letter 93-08,
``Relocation of Technical Specification Tables of instrument Response
Time Limits.'' Generic Letter 93-08 recommends the removal and
subsequent relocation of various technical specification tables which
denote instrument and system response time limits.
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.
The proposed change deletes and subsequently relocates the details
of Technical Specification Table 3.3.1-2, ``Reactor Protection System
Response Times,'' Table 3.3.2-3, ``Isolation System Instrumentation
Response Time,'' and Table 3.3.3-3, ``Emergency Core Cooling System
Response Times'' consistent with the guidance provided by Generic
Letter 93-08, dated December 29, 1993, entitled ``Relocation of
Technical Specification Tables of Instrument Response Time Limits.''
Generic Letter 93-08 recommends the removal and subsequent relocation
of various Technical Specification tables which denote instrument and
system response time limits. The response time limits and associated
footnotes are proposed to be relocated to the RBS Updated Safety
Analysis Report (USAR). This allows RBS to administratively control
subsequent changes to the response time limits in accordance with 10
CFR 50.59. The procedures which contain the various response time
limits are also subject to the change control provisions in the
Administrative Controls section of the Technical Specifications. The
proposed change only relocates the existing response time limits. The
surveillance requirements and associated Actions are not affected and
remain in the Technical Specifications. Relocating this information
does not affect the initial conditions of a design basis accident or
transient analysis. Since any subsequent changes to the USAR or
procedures are evaluated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, no increase
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
is allowed. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously
evaluated.
2. The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the
plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or
changes in methods governing normal plant operation. The proposed
change will not impose any different operational or surveillance
requirements. The change proposes to relocate these requirements to
other plant documents whereby adequate control of information is
maintained. No new failure modes are introduced. Therefore, this
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change would not involve a reduction in the margin
of safety.
The proposed change will not reduce a margin of safety because it
has no impact on any safety analysis assumption. The proposed change
does not alter the scope of equipment currently required to be OPERABLE
or subject to surveillance testing, nor does the proposed change affect
any instrument setpoints or equipment safety functions. In addition,
the values to be transposed from the Technical Specifications to the
USAR are the same as the existing Technical Specifications. Since any
future changes to these requirements in the USAR or procedures will be
evaluated per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59, no reduction in a
margin of safety is allowed. Therefore, the change does not involve a
significant reduction in a 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 April 15, 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 conferences
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition may 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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 March 3, 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 the Government Documents Department,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-2, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV/V, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-6074 Filed 3-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-6074. Public record. Not legal advice.