# 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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-20214

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** August 8, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 41431

## Text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-20214. Public record. Not legal advice.