ML20011D502
| ML20011D502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 12/14/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011D495 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8912270330 | |
| Download: ML20011D502 (10) | |
Text
.
o cuog%
,s p;
UNITED STATES
) W }, f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
e
(
WAsMiNotow, o. c. rosss
)
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE,0FFICE OT NUCLEAR REACTOR _ REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.60 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0.,NPF.38 LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY I
WATERFORD STEAM ELECTRIC _ STATION, UNIT _3 l
DOC 1ETNO.50-382
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application dated July 1,1988 as supplemented by letter dated August 15, l
1989. Louisiana Power end Light Company (LP&L or the licensee) requested changes to the License Conditions to Facility Operating License No. NFF-38 fer the Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3.
The proposed changes would transf er the operatitig responsibility to Entergy Operations, Inc.(E01). This proposed action is else beir.g taken for the Artenses Nuclear One Units 1 and 2 (ANO-1&2) and Grand Gulf, Units 1 and 2.
The ownership of Wcterford 3 will remin with LP&L, the ownership of ANO-112 will remain with Arkansas Power and Light Company, and the ownership of Grand Gulf, Units 1 and 2 will rerain primarily with Systems Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI).
2.0 DISCUSSION As early es May 1988, the licensees for Waterford 3 and Arkansas Nuclear Or.e, Units 1 and 2 announced with SERI the preposed transfer of operations and mainter;ance responsibilities to SERI. Subsequently, by application dated August 15, 1989, LP&L has proposed the transfer of operations and maintenence to E01.
Entergy Operations, Inc. is to be a new company and subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, formerly known as Middle South Utilities, Inc. E01 is also proposed to operate and maintain ANO-1&2 and Grand Gulf 182.
The nuclear staff of each of the facilities would be transferred to E01 and only those activities requiring imediate attention would be proposed for the necessary changes in the initial amendment. Our evaluation of these changes is provided in the Evaluation section.
l The consolidation of the nuclear staff under E01 would not affect the l
ownership of the plants and is being proposed for the benefits enumerated i
by the licensee. These benefits are listed, among other places, in the licensee's June 1, 1988 (Reference 1), July 1, 1988 (Reference 2), and August 15,1989 (Reference 8) submittals and, as stated by the licensee, t
include the following:
F 1).
EDI will have a repository of system nuclear operating expertise and experience. Consolidation into one nuclear operatir.g company will enhance public safety and economic operations.
i 8912270330 891214 PDR ADOCK 05000382 P.
b i l 2)
E01 will be better able to provide a consistent philosophy of cperation of the system nuclear units. This focused philosophy L
can be used to achieve excellence in all aspects of nuclear operation.
i 3)
The consolidation will allow more effective comunication ar.d i
l use of system nuclear operating experience.
i 4)
Certain non-nuclear support functions will becone specialized and focused on the requirements of a nuclear operation company I
and will thereby be more effecthe in their support of Waterford 3.
5)
Creation of a system-wide nuclear operating company will cortribute to a higher sustained level of employee performance, provide a broader base for more competitive environment for upper managenent carididates, provide an environment in which all employees will be more highly motivated toward high perfornance, and provide greater opportunity for career progression.
1 6)
Consolidation will make salary structures, career path policies, and procedures interrally consistent ard will separate nuclear from non-nuclear employees, which will pern.it managers to focus on special needs and requirements of nuclear empicyees. This l
will c.110w E01 to be competitive in the market for skilled employees and certain quality indivicuals once recruited.
The information provided by the licerisee is to support the transfer of operating responsibility to E01 ano the attainment of the above benefits will depend on the licer. sees' (or E01's) development and implementation of effective programs and controls.
Early in the review the NRC expressed the need for the licensee to keep the public and other agencies informed of the proposed transfer of opera-tionstoSERI(nowE01).
By letters dated September 9,1988, October 13, 1988, and September 22,1989(References 4,6and9),thelicensee outlined their efforts in this regard.
The NRC staff also contacted the designated State Official, Adn.inistrator, Nuclear Energy Division, Office cf Environmental Affairs, State of Louisiana,'and discussed the proposed transfer.
3.0 EVALUATION The staff's evaluation is of the licensee's submittel dated July 1, 1988 (Reference 2) as supplemented by letter dated August 15,1989(Reference 8) and from supporting information in the proposed Operating Agreement betweenLp&LandSERI(nowE01)ascontainedinthelicensee'ssubmittel deted October 12, 1986 (Reference 5).
The proposed Operating Agreement-betweer. the licensee and E01 delineates their respective resper.sibilities in operating the plant commensurate with NRC requirements, including those contained in License Conditions. After issuance of the license anendnent
i-3 tr.d the effecthe cate of the transfer of operation to E01, the NRC will normally communicate with LP&L through E01 and any changes to the Operating Agreement to fulfill NRC requirements will be an LP&L and E01 matter not to influence or delay inflenentation of the NRC requirement.
The staff in making its evaluation has applied the criteria er.d review areas required by 10 CFR 50.80 " Transfer of Licenses" as appropriate.
The transfer of operator of the facility from LP&L to E01 simplified the review in that the LP&L personnel currently acting in all areas as nuclear operations personnel will transfer to E01 and the creation of E01 as an operating company will remain, along with LP&L as owner, within the existing company of Entergy Corporation.
!'aggenent and Technical Qualifications The requested change would transfer LP&L's nuclear organization so that the Senior Vice President. Nuclear Oserations for Waterford, Unit 3 will report to the President of E01 throug1 the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. The present nuclear organization, down through the plant staff, will remain essentially in place as EDI employees.
Therefore, the technical qualifications of tie proposed Waterford Unit 3 organization will be at least equivalent to the existing organization.
This includes engineering support which, at Waterford 3. is an integral part of the Nuclear Operations organization.
L'e find the requested change acceptable as it meets the acceptance criteria of Section 13.1 of NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan. This requested change does not require any revision to Section 6 of the Technical Specifications for Waterford, Unit 3.
Financial Considerations The ownership of the facility and all rights to electric power from the facility will remain with LP&L.
In addition, as stated on page 15 of LP&L's Application to Amend FacilitLp'erating,Ypei'ahng agreement 0
License No. NPF-38 dated August 15,1989,~1 Reference BT Tuisuant to an between E01 and LP&L, all costs for the operation, construction, maintenance, repair, decontamination and deconsiissioning of Waterford 3 incurred or accrued are liabilities of LP&L when incurred or accrued.' The staff notes, however, that Article.Y, Section 5.1 of the proposed Operating Agreement between LP&L and E01 as transmitted by letter dated September 27, 1989 (Reference 10), suggests that LP&L may not agree to pay for operation and capital improvement costs that exceed either (1) the annual budget for the facility to which LP&L and E01 are to agree by November of the year prior to the budget year or (2) the n.aximum amounts to be paid within the parameters of the then-current E01 five-year business plan.
Notwithstanding this, Article XI, Section 11.5 provides that neither E01 nor LP&L is permitted to deley or withhold payment.due and owing under the Proposed Operating Agreement except that LP&L shall have the right to male any contested payments under protest. The staff understands the provisions containtd in Sections 5.1 and 11.5 of that Proposed Operating Agreenent taken together do not contradict LP&L's const.itn+nt, as referenced above, to pay for all costs for the operation, construction, maintenance, repeir, I
... a
4 decentaniination and decomissioning of Waterford 3.
The staff further expects that any final operating agreement between E01 and LP&L will continue with these same understandings.
LP&L is currently subject to the retail rate jurisdiction of the Louisiana Public Service Comission and the City Council of New Orleans. Since LP&L is an electric utility, it does not have to provide additional information to the Comission to demonstrate its financial qualification to carry out the activities for which the license amendment is sought.
The staff believes that there will be no financial consequences adversely affecting safety from allowing E01 to assume exclusive responsibility for making safety decisions. The economic benefits which the licensee anticipates from E01's operation of Waterford 3 are not expected to be gained at the expense of public health and safety given LP&L's continuing comitment to pay the costs, including safety-related costs of Waterford 3.
Thus,thestaffconcludesthatthefinancialconsequencesoftheproposed action will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
Antitrust The license amendment request transferring the operation of Waterford 3 from LP&L to E01 is subject to antitrust review pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended.
Notification of receipt and a rte,uest for concents on antitrust issues pursuant to this amendment, as well at requests for similar transfers involving the ANO Unit 2 and Grand Gulf nuclear units, were published in the Federal Register on November 1 1989 (FR Vol. 54, 46168). Commentswerereceivedfromagroupofwholesale clectric customers (Wholesale Customers) of the Arkansas Power & Light Company and also from the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (New Orleans).
The cortoents received from New Orleans were specifically related to the existirqantitrustlicenseconditionsattachedtoLouisianaPower& Light Company s (LP&L) Waterford 3 nuclear f acility. New Orleans expressed concern that the proposed transfer of operating responsibility of Waterford 3 from LP&L to E01 would in some way relieve LP&L of its obligations to comply with the antitrust license conditions.
New Orleans also requested the staff to require E01 to abide by the same antitrust license conditions,
"... to the extent E01 is able to comit antitrust violations it should besubjecttothoseconditionsforthesamereasonsthatcompelledtheir original application to LP&L."
As indicated supra the staff was also concerned with what role E01 would playinthemarketIngandbrokeringofpowerfromtheEntergyCorporation nuclear units, including Waterford 3.
As a result of the staff review, a new license condition,(which LP&L has agreed to, will be added to the Waterford 3 license.
LP&L's obligations under the existing antitrust licenseconditionswillnotchange.) Although the new license condition does not obligate E01 to the existing antitrust license conditions, it provides meaningful remedy for potential violations of these license conditions by any of LP&L's agents, including E01.
The new license l
. condition will hold LP&L responsible and accountable for the actions of its agents to the extent said agent's actions contravene the antitrust license conditions in Appendix C of the Waterford 3 license. The integrity of the antitrust license conditions is thereby maintained and the owner of Waterford 3. LP&L will have a substantial vested interest in prohibiting violations of the antitrust license conditions by any entity acting in its behalf. The staff believes the new license condition coupled with the reassurance that LP&L will continue to be bound by the existing Antitrust license conditions resolves the concerns raised by New Orleans.
Wholesale Customers requested the NRC to either extend the existing license conditions inposed on the Grand Gulf facilit multi-state territory served by Entergy Corporation'y to the entires nuclear plants by imposing similar license conditions on ANO Unit 2 or extending the geographic area applicable to the Grand Gulf license conditions to encompass the entire area served by Entergy Corporation. Wholesale Customers have not expressly addressed the competitive implications of the addition of E01 as operator of the facility. They also have not provided any other information which would allow antitrust conditions to be imposed upon ANO Unit 2 or new conditions imposed on Grand Gulf extending the geographic reach of the existing conditions. Fonr.a1 antitrust reviews for facilities with operating licenses are only required when there are significant changes in tie licensee's activities from the previous antitrust review.
In South Carolina Electric and Gss Co. (Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI 80-28,11 WW.T2DD35 (1980), the Comission held, among other things, that significant changed circumstances occur when there are changes which would create or maintain a situation inconsis-tent with the antitrust laws; an antitrust review of these changes is warranted only when it would likely be concluded that the changed situation i
has negative antitrust implications. See also. Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Units 1&2), CLI 77-135, 5 NRC 13DT T3T/ (1977). I6oTe' sale Customers contend that changed circumstances have resulted from a FERC decision requiring the costs of Grand Gulf Unit 1 to be shared by all of the subsidiaries of Entergy Corp. However, they have not provided proof, nor furnished adequate explanation, as to why this accounting change constitutes anticompetitive activity or has adverse antitrust implications.
In addition, Wholesale Customers contend that license conditions are necessary since their existing wholesale contracts do not contain the type of terms and conditions that are included in contracts resulting from antitrust reviews associated with other nuclear facilities. This assertion likewise does not constitute a changed circumstance since Wholesale Customers have not established how the absence of these terms in their contracts creates or maintains a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
."j
- In its review of the proposed amendment adding EDI to the ANO Unit 2 license, the staff was concerned with what role EDI would play in marketing or brokering of power or energy from each of the Entergy Corpotation nuclear units.
In an effort to avoid a formal antitrust review, the licenste has agreed to add an antitrust license condition to its ANO Unit 2 license that will effectively preclude E01 from using power or energy from ANO Unit 2 in a manner that would affect competition in bulk power services throughout AP&L's service area. Moreover the same license conditionwillholdAP&Lres>onsibleandaccountablefortheactionsof its agents including E01, tiet pertain to marketing or brokering of power i
orenergyfromANOUnit2. The staff feels this license condition will i
ensure that E01 will do no more than operate ANO Unit 2 and will net be cf power or energy.petitive arena associated with marketing or breering l
involved in the cor As a result of these actions, the staff has completed its antitrust review of this amendment request.
license Conditio,ns A license condition will be added that holds LP&L responsible and accountable l
for the acticns of its agents to the extent said agent's actions contravene
~
the antitrust license conditions in Appendix C of this license.
Restricted Data The licensee has addressed the limits on restricted data and other defense information and E01 agrees to the appropriate conditions of protection and processes. The current employees of LP&L who are aware of and responsible for safeguarding informatier. will transfer to EDI; therefore, no reduction in understanding or responsibility is expected.
Eyr ge_ny Planning er The licensee proposes to transfer to E01 the authority and' responsibilities for functions necessary to fulfill the emergency planning requirements specifiedin10CFR50.47(b)andPart50,AppendixE. There will be to initial changes to the Waterford 3 emergency plan or planning organization.
The E01 organization may, in the future add organizational components to essume overall emergency planning.
In a letter dated July 28, 1968 the NRC stated its position on plan and program centralization and NRC approvals. With centralization, plans may be transferred to another area or site. Our concern will be that the new organization possesses the technical capabilities as was found acceptable at the Waterford 3 site.
Any changes with the plans or programs at the site may be made in accordance with established rules and processes. Since it is not clear that the rules and processes contemplated such drastic changes as transfer to a new organization at a new site, the NRC has determined and the licensee has agreed that the initial plan and program change to a new site would be reviewed by the NRC prior to the change.
Subsequent changes would revert to current established and SERI (and now E01) practices.This understanding with the licensee applies to areas other than Emergency Planning as
- well, l
48 4
g 7
The current and eventual emergency plan will depend upon a continuing working arrangement between LP&L and E01. Certain support functions will remain with LP&L and LP&L can be expected to provide emergency non-nuclear support from other company areas as needed. We find this sense of cooperation both essential and acceptable.
Offsite Power General Design Criterion 17 requires that there be an assured source of power to the plant. The offsite power available to Waterford 3 and as l
found acceptable to the NRC is as described in the final Safety Analysis Report. With the transfer to E01 this will not change; however, arrange-mentshavebeenproposedfortheInterfacebetweenE01asoperatorofa nuclear plant and LP&L non-nuclear employees for the upkeep and maintenance of offsite power ties to the plant.
These arrangements are to assure that the NRC's acceptance of the offsite power to Waterford 3 is continued.
Secur_i_ty and Exclusion _ Area Control l
The employees of LP&L responsible for security will become E01 employees and E01 will continue to maintain and implenent the security plans as previously found acceptable. Some transition changes may be a)propriate to reflect LP&L and E01 relationships but it is not expected t1at thtse changes will decrease the effectiveness of the plans.
Processes are underway to address such changes.
Control of tie exclusion area involving security end non-nuclear interfaces with LP&L has been addressed by the licensee and include considerations for normal and emergency access and appropriate continuing control of Waterford I and 2 activities by LPSL.
Written procedures and agreements are appropriate to assure that NRC approved activities in and control of the exclusion area is maintained.
Ovality Assurance Program l
E01 will assume responsibility of the functions associated with the Waterford 3 quality assurance program.
The organization, function, and structure of the Waterford 3 quality assurance department will not be effected by this license amendment. As discussed in the Emergency Plan section above, any proposed change to centralize plans to a new site will require NRC initial approval; the quality assurance plans also fall in the category and understanding with LP&L and E01.
Training The licensee has stated that the training program, requirements, and maintenance of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations accreditation for licensed and non-licensed training will continue as before but under E01. Processes for NRC approval of changes that may decrease the scope of the approved operator requalification program will continue as before.
,e l
8 i
Lice.n,s.e Conditions f
The licensee has proposed changes to the license conditions to reflect E01 operation and maintenance of Waterford 3 and continued LP&L ownership of Waterford 3.
We have reviewed the proposed license conditions and recomend two changes. Reactor fuel at Waterford 3 is to remain at Waterford 3 unless specific approval is obtained otherwise. The license i
condition for E01 to receive, possess, and use reactor fuel is to be redified to reflect Waterford reactor fuel at the Waterford site. A i
license condition will be added that holds LP&L responsible and accountable for the actions of its agents to the extent said agent's actions contravene l
the antitrust license conditions is Appendix C of this license. The licensee agrees to these changes.
4.0 CONTACT WITH STATE AND OTHER OFFICIALS i
The NRC staff has advised the Administrator, Nuclear Energy Division, Office of Environmental Affairs, State of Louisiana of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration.
No coments were received on the no significant hazards consideration. The NRC did receive comraents on intent to review from the City of New Orleans as a result of the Comission's notice, 53 FR 46725 dated November 18, 1988, on antitrust matters (see Reference 7) and from representatives of the City of New Orleans (see Reference 11) and from representatives of the cities of Benton, Conway, North Little Rock, Osceola, Prescott, and West Memphis and the Farmers l
ElectricCooperativeCorporation(seeReference12)onantitrustmattersas e result of the Comission's notice (54 FR 46168) dated November 1,1989.
t
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32 and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 1989 (54 FR 49371).
~
Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission has determined that issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
P 6.0 CON,CLUSION Based upon its evaluation of the proposed changes to the Waterford 3 License Conditions, the staff has concluded that:
there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the >ublic will not be endangered i
by operation in the 3roposed manner, and suc1 activities will be conducted I
in compliance with tie Comission's regulations and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimict.1 to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: December 14, 1989 l
Principal Contributors:
D. Wieginton F.Allenspach R. Wood W. Lambe
References 1)
Letter dated June 1,1988 from J. G. Dewease to NRC, Attention:
l D. M. Crutchfield, transmitting draft proposed amendment for SERI operation of Waterford 3, 2)
Letter dated July 1,1988 from J. G. Dewease to NRC, Attention:
D. M. Crutchfield, ford 3. transmitting application for amendment reflecting SERI operation of Water l
3)
Letter dated July 28, 1988 from D. L. Wigginton to J. G. Dewease, subject
" Systems Energy Resources Inc. (SERI) License Amendment Application for Waterford 3" transmitting, clarifications of positions and requesting LP&L response.
4)
Letter dated September 9, 1988 from R. F. Burski to NRC, Attention:
D. M. Crutchfield,) response to NRC July 28, 1988 request for information (Reference 3 above.
5)
Letter dated October 12, 1988 from R. F. Burski to NRC, subject "LPAL/SERI Proposed Operating Agreements" transmitting proposed operating agreements, Security and Exchange Commission submittals,l, Council of the City ofletter refe Louisiana Public Service Commission submitta New Orleans submittal, and SERI Financial Statement dated June 30, 1988.
r 6)
Letter dated October 13, 1988 from J. G. Cesare, Jr. (SERI) to NRC l
i transmitting actions to keep public and appropriate agencies fully informed.
7)
Letter dated December 5,1988 from Glen L. Ortman to S. Chilk, providing comment by the City of New Orleans, Louisiana.
8) letter dated August 15, 1989 from J. G. Dewease to NRC, transm t+ing
[
application for amendment reflecting E01 operation of Waterford 3.
9)
Letter dated September 22,1989 from R. Burski to NRC regarding Entergy Operations, Inc. public information.
10)
Letter dated September 27, 1989 from R. Burski to NRC regarding Securities and Exchange Commission Application.
11)
Letter dated December 1, 1989 from R. A. Glick transmitting the letter dated December 1,1989 from C. Vance, G. Ortsen, and P. Nordstrom regarding Antitrust Comments.
12)
Letter dated November 30, 1989 from 2. Wilson regarding Antitrust Comments.
I
l.*[c musvg jo UNITED sVATEs
+
g
[
> eg[c j g
NUCLE AR RESULATORY COMMISSION g
wAssiwcTow. o. c. sosss i
%.'...+/
December 14, 1989 Docket flo. 50-382 Arnendment to Indemnity Agreement No. B-92 f
Arnendment No. 5 j
Effective December 14, 1989
, Indemnity Agreement No. B-92, between Louisiana Power and Light Company and the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, dated February 8,1983, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
The following named licensee "Entergy Operations, Inc."
i is added to the indemnity agreement.
FOR THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tittIS$10N P
(
'/(
k
/(
Vl41 d.
Eileen li.'HcKenna, Acting Chief Policy Developnent and Technical Support Branch Prograin fianagement Policy Development and Analysis StaIf Office of Nuclear Reactcr Regulation l
l Accepted
,1989 Dy _
i Louisit.re Power and Light Conpany Accepted 1989 By Entergy Operations, Inc.
l t
L