Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; 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

[Docket No. 50-390]

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; 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 Nos.

NFP-90, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA or the licensee)

for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), Unit 1 located in

Rhea County, Tennessee.

The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS)

3.6.12 to allow a one-time extension of the three month surveillance

requirement (SR) for the ice condenser lower inlet doors to coincide

with the plant mid-cycle outage. Specifically, this proposed amendment

would add notes to SRs 3.6.12.3, 3.6.12.4, and 3.6.12.5 and their

respective bases to state, ``The 3-month performance due September 9,

1996, (per SR 3.0.2) may be extended until October 21, 1996.

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

[[Page 41432]]

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) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The four previous performances of SR 3.6.12.3 and 3.6.12.4 have

all been successful. The most recent performance of SR 3.6.12.5 on

May 17, 1996, was successful. However, because a previous

performance of SR 3.6.12.5 on May 13, 1996, had identified several

doors which did not pass portions of the surveillance, the results

of the May 13, 1996, performance were reviewed in detail.

Conduct of the May 13, 1996, surveillance yielded initial ``as-

found'' test results which indicate that 15 of the 48 lower inlet

doors did not meet the 40 degrees open position opening torque 13 by

an average of 2.8 percent, one by 13 percent and one by 23 percent).

This has been evaluated by TVA and Westinghouse as to the potential

effect on current design basis analysis. The review also addressed

three doors which exceeded the overall friction criteria by 0.3

percent. The evaluation consisted of a review of the Subcompartment

analysis, Long-Term LOCA [loss-of-coolant accident] Containment

analysis, Long-Term MSLB [main steamline break] Containment

analysis, Maximum Reverse Differential Pressure analysis, and Deck

Bypass. The result of these analyses, indicates that the ``as-

found'' deviations in ice condenser inlet door opening performance

are still bounded by the current licensing design basis containment

related accident analysis. In addition, since the ``as-left''

conditions were within the TS requirements and a subsequent

performance on May 17, 1996, did not identify any deficiencies,

justification exists to allow extension of the 3-month surveillance

for the ice condenser lower inlet doors until the plant mid-cycle

outage scheduled for October 1996.

Other considerations to support this justification for

surveillance extension, are the initial ice mass relative to TS

requirements in the WBN ice condenser, and the probability of core

damaging small break LOCAs requiring Ice Condenser function during

the extension period.

In a supplemental letter dated April 15, 1996, regarding WBN's

Ice Bed and Flow Channel inspection Surveillance Frequencies

amendment request, TVA documented the initial ice loading for the

WBN unit ice condenser was 2,877,685 lbs. This value is 473,885 lbs

more (about 20 percent) than the currently approved TS value of

2,403,800 lbs provided for an 18-month surveillance interval, and

752,685 lbs greater (about 31 percent) than the safety analysis

value of 2,125,000 lbs. For the LBLOCA [larege break loss-of-coolant

accident] the doors would have been expected to open as designed,

considering that all surveillances since fuel load have indicated

that all doors passed the (SR) 3.6.12.4 test requiring an opening

torque of 675 inch lbs.

For the small break LOCA, door opening torque at the 40 degrees

open position becomes important to avoid steam maldistribution

effects. As stated previously, one surveillance had two doors that

did not meet the torque criteria for the mid position by 13 percent

and 23 percent, respectively (one of two bay 3 doors and one of two

bay 5 doors). Several doors also exceeded the criteria by an average

of only 2.8 percent. Neglecting these minor exceedances, and

conservatively assuming both bay 3 and both bay 5 doors did not

open, only 162 ice baskets representing 240,442 lbs of ice would

have been unavailable during the event. This is considerably less

than the excess margin of ice above the TS requirement for the more

challenging large break LOCA. This margin would allow for the

failure of 8 doors associated with 4 additional bays. In addition,

total blockage would not be likely since the steam/air mixture would

reach the impacted bays from adjacent bays or via the operational

doors in the two bays of interest. Therefore, it is concluded that

the exceedances observed were not significant for the small break

LOCA.

Another consideration for surveillance interval extension, is

the likelihood of the need for the tested components during the

period of the extension. In order to quantify the potential for a

SBLOCA [small break loss-of-coolant accident] occurring during the

42 day period of time being requested for the extension of the 3-

month surveillance interval, the probability of selected initiating

events resulting in core damage occurring during the period was

evaluated. During the 42-day period, the probability of small LOCAs

resulting core damage was 1.3E-06, and the probability of small

break LOCAs requiring ice condenser function was 3.3E-03. Therefore,

operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment

(extension of the 3-month surveillance for the ice condenser lower

inlet doors until the plant mid-cycle outage scheduled for October

1996), when considering the magnitude of the deviations observed in

the May 13, 1996, surveillance testing, the sensitivity to the

containment related analysis, and other physical/technical

considerations discussed in the preceding text, would not involve a

significant increase in the probability of an accident previously

evaluated nor their respective consequences.

(2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed extension of the surveillance interval affects only

the operability confidence associated with the lower ice doors. It

has no impact on systems or components, the failure of which could

initiate a new design basis accident. It is concluded, therefore,

that no new or different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated is created by the proposed amendment.

(3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed

amendment would not involve a significant reduction in margin of

safety.

The preceding text (No significant Hazards Consideration

Determination questions 1 & 2) covers TVA's evaluation of test data

from the May 13, 1996, surveillance. This evaluation addresses the

associated LOCAs requiring the ice condenser function, and the

comparison of the initial WBN ice condenser ice loading versus

maximum potential loss of ice bed usage. This discussion is

applicable to the review to determine if a significant reduction in

margin of safety will occur with operation of the WBN facility in

accordance with the proposed amendment.

This review determined that there would have been essentially no

unavailability of the lower inlet doors for a LBLOCA. For the

conditions found, the current TS ice mass of 2,403,800 lbs would

have still been met, with the margin between TS and design basis ice

mass of 2,125,000 lbs still maintained. For smaller breaks, the

additional ice would more than make up for any maldistribution

caused by any friction increase in the doors.

A Westinghouse evaluation of the deficiencies identified during

the May 13, 1996, surveillance performance indicates that

substantial margin exists for the licensing basis subcompartment

analysis, Long-Term LOCA Containment Integrity analysis, Long-Term

MSLB Containment Integrity analysis, Maximum Reverse Differential

Pressure analysis, and concludes that the current licensing analyses

remain bounding even without the immediate correction and subsequent

reverification on May 17, 1996. Therefore, the proposed amendment

would not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

In order to quantify the potential for a SBLOCA during the

period of time being requested for extension of the 3-month

surveillance interval, the probability of selected initiating events

which result in core damage occurring during the period was

evaluated. For the probability of selected small break LOCAs

resulting in core damage, the probability was 1.3E-06 and for

probability of a small break LOCA was 3.3E-03. These event

probabilities are small enough to conclude that the margin of safety

has not been decreased by the proposed amendment.

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

[[Page 41433]]

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 Chief, Rules

Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and

Publications 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 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.

The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to

intervene is discussed below.

By September 9, 1996, 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, and at the local public

document room located at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001

Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402. 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 20555-0001, 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,

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 Mr. Frederick J. Hebdon: 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 20555-0001,

and to General Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, ET 10H, 400 West

Summit Hill Drive, 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).

[[Page 41434]]

For further details with respect to this action, see the

application for amendment dated July 31, 1996, which is available for

public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Library, 1001

Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of August 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ronald W. Hernan,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96-20214 Filed 8-7-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P