ML051190054
| ML051190054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  (NPF-038) |
| Issue date: | 04/29/2005 |
| From: | Aexion T NRC/NRR/DLPM/LPD4 |
| To: | Venable J Entergy Operations |
| Alexion T W, NRR/DLPM, 415-1326 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC6835 | |
| Download: ML051190054 (11) | |
Text
April 29, 2005 Mr. Joseph E. Venable Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751
SUBJECT:
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (WATERFORD 3) -
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ON EXTENDED POWER UPRATE LICENSE CONDITION ON INSTRUMENT UNCERTAINTY (TAC NO. MC6835)
Dear Mr. Venable:
The Commission has forwarded the enclosed "Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing," to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
This notice relates to your April 27, 2005, application to remove the license condition on instrument uncertainty, that was imposed on the Waterford 3 license with the issuance of License Amendment 199 for the extended power uprate on April 15, 2005.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Thomas W. Aexion, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate IV Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-382 cc: See next page
April 29, 2005 Mr. Joseph E. Venable Vice President Operations Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751
SUBJECT:
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 3 (WATERFORD 3) -
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE ON EXTENDED POWER UPRATE LICENSE CONDITION REGARDING INSTRUMENT UNCERTAINTY (TAC NO. MC6835)
Dear Mr. Venable:
The Commission has forwarded the enclosed "Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing," to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
This notice relates to your April 27, 2005, application to remove the license condition on instrument uncertainty, that was imposed on the Waterford 3 license with the issuance of License Amendment 199 for the extended power uprate on April 15, 2005.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Docket No. 50-382 Thomas W. Aexion, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate IV cc: See next page Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC PDIV-1 Reading RidsOgcRp RidsAcrsAcnwMailCenter RidsNrrDlpmLpdiv1 (AHowe)
RidsNrrPMNKalyanam RidsNrrPMTAlexion RidsNrrLADJohnson RidsRgn4MailCenter (AHowell)
Accession No.:ML051190054 OFFICE PDIV-1/PM PDIV-1/LA PDIV-1/SC NAME TAlexion DBaxley for DJohnson AHowe DATE 4/28/05 4/28/05 4/29/05 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC.
DOCKET NO. 50-382 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-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc.
(Entergy or the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) located in Saint Charles Parish, Louisiana.
The proposed amendment would remove the license condition on instrument uncertainty, that was imposed on the Waterford 3 license with the issuance of License Amendment 199 for the extended power uprate (EPU) on April 15, 2005.
The amendment request was submitted on an exigent basis because the need for a license amendment to remove the license condition was not recognized by Entergy or the NRC staff until just prior to the issuance of the EPU, and the licensee requests approval of the proposed amendment by May 27, 2005, to support power ascension from the Spring 2005 refueling outage.
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.
Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not result in a change to any structure, system, or component (SSC). The accident mitigation features of the plant for previously evaluated accidents are not affected by the proposed change. The proposed change has no impact on the safety analysis because the application of an explicit offset to the Technical Specification parameters for instrument uncertainty provides additional assurance that the plant will operate within the operating envelop[e] previously analyzed. The completion of the license condition will allow Waterford 3 to operate at the power level of 3716 MWt [megawatts-thermal] which has previously been evaluated and approved by the NRC staff as documented in Amendment 199 to the Waterford 3 Operating License.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2.
Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not change the design function or operation of any SSC. The proposed change introduces no new mode of operation. The proposed change does not affect the functional capability of safety-related equipment. The completion of the license condition will allow Waterford 3 to operate at the power level of 3716 MWt which has previously been evaluated and approved by the NRC staff as documented in Amendment 199 to the Waterford 3 Operating License.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3.
Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not result in a change to any structure, system, or component (SSC). The accident mitigation features of the plant for previously evaluated accidents are not affected by the proposed change. The proposed change has no impact on the safety analysis because the application of an explicit offset to the Technical Specification parameters for instrument uncertainty provides additional assurance that the plant will operate within the operating envelop[e] previously analyzed. Existing Technical Specification operability and surveillance requirements are not reduced by the proposed change. The completion of the license condition will allow Waterford 3 to operate at the power level of 3716 MWt which has previously been evaluated and approved by the NRC staff as documented in Amendment 199 to the Waterford 3 Operating License.
Therefore, the proposed 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 14 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 14-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 14-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 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m.
to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, 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 Commissions Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commissions PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, 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 general requirements: 1) the name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
- 2) the nature of the requestors/petitioners right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3) the nature and extent of the requestors/petitioners property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and 4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioners interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 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/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor 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/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy 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.
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.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: 1) first class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
- 2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention:
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; 3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or 4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Nicolas S.
Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 2005-3502, attorney for the licensee.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated April 27, 2005, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2005.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/RA/
Thomas W. Alexion, Project Manager, Section 1 Project Directorate IV Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
June 2004 Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 cc:
Mr. Michael E. Henry, State Liaison Officer Department of Environmental Quality Permits Division P.O. Box 4313 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821-4313 Vice President Operations Support Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Director Nuclear Safety Assurance Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751 Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway P. O. Box 651 Jackson, MS 39205 General Manager Plant Operations Waterford 3 SES Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751 Licensing Manager Entergy Operations, Inc.
17265 River Road Killona, LA 70066-0751 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Resident Inspector/Waterford NPS P. O. Box 822 Killona, LA 70066-0751 Regional Administrator, Region IV U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, TX 76011 Parish President Council St. Charles Parish P. O. Box 302 Hahnville, LA 70057 Executive Vice President
& Chief Operating Officer Entergy Operations, Inc.
P. O. Box 31995 Jackson, MS 39286-1995 Chairman Louisiana Public Services Commission P. O. Box 91154 Baton Rouge, LA 70825-1697