ML20056E798
| ML20056E798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1993 |
| From: | Lower J, Pembroke J CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC., DUNCAN, BROWN, WEINBERG & PALMER |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056E790 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 9308250183 | |
| Download: ML20056E798 (41) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. .- _ - . - - - _ . - -. . . . .. . ... 4
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5-/ pe. rig s . BEFORE THE 'S ' ,.<,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)'$' E O Li-- '
e
'f In the Matter of ) y% -
) N, ,
Gulf States Utilities Company ) Docket No.'50-448, j
) . . ' . .~^
t (River Bend Station) i
)
)
CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.'S, COMMENTS, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING AND CONDITIONS, ON NOTICE OF-CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF . AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE, l PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERAT. ION I DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING $ % ' A
'i O !
m i i
- 0. 3
% J m M J Q 1 a.3 James D. Pembroke Janice L. Lower l Thomas L. Rudebusch DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER
& PEMBROKE, P.C.
1615 M Street, N.W.,' Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 467-6370 Attorneys for Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Dated: August 6, 1993 9308250183 930817 PDR ADOCK 05000458 g PDR 1
. _ - - - . . _ . - - . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ . , , . . . . . . _ _ _ . ~ ., , _ . - _ _ . _ . - , _ , . . , . ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION........................................ 1 II.
SUMMARY
OF CAJUN'S POSITION......................... 3 III. THE PARTIES AND THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING........ 5 A. Ca]un Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.......... 5
- 3. Gulf States Utilities Company.................. 7 C. The Entergy Corporation........................ 7 D. River Bend Station............................. 8 E. The Application For License Amendment To Transfer Operational Control Of River Bend To EOI And The Application For Transfer Of Control Of Ownership Of License..................................... 9 IV. PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING.......................... .................. 10 A. Cajun's Intervention Should Be Granted......... 10 B. A Hearing Should Be Conducted Prior To A Determination On No Significant Hazards Consideration.......................... 12 V. THE OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT, AS PROPOSED, MAY RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE MARGIN OF SAFETY AT RIVER BEND.......................................... 16 A. The Contractual Framework For Maintaining River Bend Operation Is Tenuous And Does Not Require Entergy To Guarantee EOI Funding For River Bend Operation................................. 16 B. GSU's Risks From The Cajun Litigation And The Texas Litigation Are Real And Substantial..................... .............. 18
- 1. Nature Of The Cajun Litigation And Texas. Litigation...................... 18
- 2. The Impact Of The Cajun Litigation And The Texas Litigation Is Substantial.............. . 19
-i-
t i , 1 i i C. Entergy And EDI Officials Have l Testified That A GSU Bankruptcy ; Could Result In A River Bend Shutdown.................... ........... . . . . . 23 l D. The NRC Cannot Make A No Significant l Hazards Consideration Determination . l Without Full Analysis Of River Bend's Future Safe And Reliable Operation..... . . . . . . 25 , i VI. THE LICENSE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED AND THE NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION l DETERMINATION SHOULD BE GIVEN, ONLY UPON , l APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFE AND RELIABLE OPERATION OF RIVER BEND................ 26 I VII. CONCLUSION.... ........... ......................... 29 , i l l h l l l
, ,,,g - --s ,, ,-
yn., -- y y .gr,-s-- , .m ,,,g -
1 l TABLE OF AUTHORITIES l CASES 1 Brecks v. Atomic Enerav Ccerission, 476 F.2d 924 (D.C. l C r. 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 I Cen-onwealth Edison Comeanv, 14 NRC 616 (1981) . . . . . 13 i Entercy Services. Inc. and Gulf States Utilitfa- Compar- , 62 FERC i 61,073 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 j l Southwest Louisiana Electric Membershin Cerroratien and ! I
- Di >
- i e Electric Membershir Corcoration v Gulf States Utilities Coreanv, Civil Action No. 92-2129 l
(U.S.D.C. W.D. La.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 19 l STATUTES / LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS / REGULATIONS i 7 U.S.C. 55 901, 21 sea. (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 15 U.S.C. 5 791(b) (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 42 U.S.C. 5 2239(a)(1)(A) (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 S. Rep. No. 97-113, recrinted in,
-1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3598 . . . . . . ... . 14 1
i Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, recrinted in, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3607 . . 14 10 C.F.R. 5 2.708(e) (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 2 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 C.F.R. S 50.90 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . 2 10 C.F.R. S 50.92(c)(3) (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4, 14, 25 17 CFR S 250.23 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 29 17 CFR S 250.45 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 28 l 58 Fed. Reg. 36436 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 58 Fed. Reg. 16246 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 l 58 Fed. Reg. 36423 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1, 5, 9, 14 l
-iii--
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
Gulf States Utilities Company ) Docket No. 50-458 i
)
(River Bend Station) )
)
CAJUN ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.'S, COMMENTS, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING AND CONDITIONS, ON ; NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Notice issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission") on June 29, 1993, 58 Fed. Reg. i 36423, 36435 (July 7, 1993), Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. ("Ca3un"), hereby petitions to intervene, files its I comments, requests a hearing, and requests substantive relief in the above-captioned proceeding on the Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to the Facility Operating License, Proposed 1 No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing. This proceeding was initiated by the filing on January l 13, 1993, by Gulf States Utilities Company ("GSU" or " Gulf States"), which is a joint licensee of River Bend Nuclear Station l l with Ce]un, of GSU's request to amend the River Bend Facility Operating License NPF-47, to include as a licensee Entergy I i l l I
. _ _ -, , ~ , - _ -
i 1 Operations, Inc. ("EOI"), purportedly pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.90 (1993) of the NRC's Rules and Regulations. Ca3un's petition is supported by testimony" of David Lee Mohre, Ca3un's Executive Vice President and Chief Executive ; Officer, and Michael J. Hamilton, a financial consultant to Cajun, both of which testimonies are incorporated herein by , I reference. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.708(e) (1993), the , t following are designated as the persons on whom service of pleadings and other papers in this proceeding should be made: James D. Pembroke, Esq. Janice L. Lower, Esq. Thomas L. Rudebusch, Esq. ; Duncan, Weinberg, Miller j
& Pembroke, P.C. l 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-6370 .
(202) 467-6379 (facsimile) l l Victor J. Elmer Vice President - Operations Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 10719 Airline Highway Baton Rouge, LA 70895 (504) 291-3060 l 1/ This testimony was filed on March 24, 1993, in the related merger proceeding before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") in Enterav Services. Inc. and Gulf States Utilities Comeanv, FERC Docket Nos. EC92-21-000 and ER92-806-000 ("FERC Merger Proceedings") and was attached to Cajun's Comments, Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing and Conditions on Application for Approval of Transfer of Ownership, filed with the NRC by Ca3un on April 26, 1993, in Docket No. 50-458. l
i 9 II.
SUMMARY
OF CAJUN'S POSITION GSU proposes to transfer operational authority for ' t River Bend to EOI, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy Corporation ("Entergy"). EOI will operate River Bend under the t i terms of the proposed GSU/EOI River Bend Station Operating I' Agreement (" Operating Agreement") EOI is very thinly capitalized and will receive its funding for River Bend operation solely from GSU under the terms of the Operating Agreement. Although EOI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Entergy, ! as will be GSU if the merger is approved, Entergy has no obligation to provide funding to EDI tc maintain the safe and > reliable operation of River Bend should GSU not fully compensate l EOI under the Operating Agreement. Entergy's sole obligation to f fund EOI activities is found in the Entergy/GSU/EOI River Bend ! Station Guarantee Agreement (" Guarantee Agreement").2' Entergy's ! obligations to provide EOI adequate funding to safely and reliably operate River Bend extends only so long as GSU continues to meet its payment obligations under the Operating Agreement. Thia financial arrangement might not normally raise , safety concerns. However, as more fully discussed below, Cajun l i and GSU are involved in substantial litigation regarding Cajun's l l ownership status in River Bend. If GSU loses that litigation, GSU will be obligated to pay Cajun at least $1.6 billion and will I 2/ The Operating Agreement is attached to the FERC Testimony of David L. Mohre, as Ex. CJN-2, Schedule 2.. 1/ The Guarantee Agreement is attached to the FERC Testimony of David L. Mohre,-as Ex. CJN-?, Schedule 3. i
i l
-4 - :
?
I receive back Cajun's thirty percent ownership of R ter Bend. In ) that case, GSU has stated that it will likely be fcrced to i declare bankruptcy. If bankrupt, GSU's payments to EC: under the Operating Agreement are drawn into considerable quest;:n-. If , i those payments cease, EOI has no sources of external funding and Entergy has no obligation to provide funding under the Guarantee Agreement. Closing the circle on Cajun's safety concerns are the extraordinary statements by Entergy Chief Executive Officer, t Edwin A. Lupberger, and EOI's Chief Executive Officer, Donald C. t i Hint:, that, if adequate funding for EOI was not forthcoming from GSU, EOI may be forced to shutdown the River Bend Station.F The shaky financial underpinnings of EOI, ccupled with , the statements of the chief executive officers of Entergy and EOI l that a GSU loss in the Cajun litigation could result in a River l < Bend shutdown, give rise to concerns that the license amendment to transfer operating responsibilities for River Bend to EOI could " involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety." l l 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92(c)(3) (1993). Thus, the proposed license transfer does not meet the criteria for a finding of no significant hazards consideration. l The Commission should undertake a full investigation, including an evidentiary hearing, of the safety issues which i i A/ These statements were made in cross-examination in the FERC Merger Proceedings. Egg pages 23 to 25, infra.
I
-5 -
arise as a result of the proposed license transfer and condition the amendnent of the license accordingly U III. THE P7RTIES AND THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING l A. Ca,un Electric Power Cooperative. Inc. Cajun is a Loulslana cooperative corporation with its j principal place of business located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. i Ca]un is engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution l l 1 and sale of electricity to, among others, the following twelve rural electric distribution cooperatives which are Ca]un's Members, under all requirements contracts: Beauregard Electric l l Coocerative, DeRidder, Louisiana; Claiborne Electric COcperative, l l Inc., Homer, Louisiana; Concordia Electric Cooperative, Inc., j i Ferriday, Louisiana; Dixie Electric Membership Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Jefferson Davis Electric Cooperative, Inc., Jennings, Louisiana; Northeast Louisiana Power Cooperative, Inc., j l Winnsboro, Louisiana; Pointe Coupee Electric Membership ; Corporation, New Roads, Louisiana; South Louisiana Electric j Cooperative Association, Houma, Louisiana; Southwest Louisiana l 1/ These Comments, Petition for Leave to Intervene, etc., are filed in accordance with the July 7, 1993 Federal Recister Notice which elicited comments on the proposed determination on significant hazards considerations. 58 Fed. F.eg. 36423 (July 7, 1993). When the Commission notices GSU's license amendment request for general comment, Cajun will submit comments on the following matters, among others: (1) lack of.GSU authority to amend the license without Ca3un's : consent; (2) operational impacts on Cajun of license l suendment; (3) GSU and Entergy compliance with license conditions; (4) impact on Cajun's rights regarding the l operation of River Bend; and (5) conditions needed to be ! imposed on the license amendment. Cajun's general position ) on these matters can be found in Cajun's Comments, etc., i filed with the NRC on April 26, 1993, in Docket No. 50-458, in response to GSU's request for approval of transfer of ownership. 1 I
i i 4 l Electric Membership Corporation, Lafayette, Loulslana; Teche Electric Cooperative, Inc., Jeanerette, Loulslana; Valley f Electric Membership Corporation, Natchitoches, Loulslana; and l i Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Franklinton, Louisiana (collectively "Ca]un's Members"). Ca]un and Ca]un's Members are non-profit cooperatives formed under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, 7.U.S.C. gg 901, er agg. (1988). Cajun is eligible to apply to the Rural [ Electrification Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture ("REA') for loan guarantees to allow it to construct or purchase generation and transmission facilities. , As a generation and transmission cooperative, Cajun functions as the power supply and transmission component of a j vertically integrated system in which Cajun's Members have responsibility for the distribution and retail sale of all power j and energy for their consumer-owners. Cajun's Members serve i approximately 1,000,000 people in a large portion of rural j l Louisiana. Ca3un's primary purpose is to provide an adequate and reliable supply of economical power and energy to meet the full requirements of Cajun's Members. l l Cajun currently has power supply responsibility for all of its Members' loads, whose normal system peak load is approximately 1,300 MW. Cajun currently owns or is entitled to l l approximately 1,976 MW of generation capacity. Cajun has l i expended billions of dollars in building its own generating l stations, Big Cajun No. 1, Big Cajun No. 2, and in securing the j 1
., ~.-,-n--,- = . . , . - ,- ,, . .
r l rights to other power supply sources, including its 30 percent (282 MW) share of River Bend. i f f B. Gulf States Utilities Company I l GSU is a Texas corporation with its principal place of ! business located in Beaumont, Texas. GSU is an investor-owned i i t public utility which owns and operates facilities for the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric power l and energy in interstate commerce GSU sells electric power and i energy to approximately 575,000 customers in Louisiana and Texas GSU's 1991 system peak was approximately 5,200 MW. Its I generating capacity is approximately 6,750 MW, comprised of coal, j gas and nuclear units. GSU currently owns 70 percent (658 MW) of ! i River Bend. l 4 C. The Enterev Corroration Entergy (formerly Middle South Utilities, Inc.) is a ! Florida corporation with its principal place of business located ! in New Orleans, Louisiana. Entergy owns all of the common stock l l i of certain operating subsidiaries, including: Arkansas Power & i I Light Company ("AP&L"), Louisiana Power & Light Company ("LP&L"), Mississippi Power & Light Company ("MP&L"), and New Orleans ! Public Service, Inc. ("NOPSI") (collectively " Operating . ( Companies"). The Operating Companies collectively distribute and sell electric power and energy to approximately 1.7 million customers at wholesale and retail in portions of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. The electric facilities of the Operating Companies are integrated and operated on a system-wide
i i
- basis, under the terms, :nter alla, of the En;ergy System Agreement. Entergy's System Operations Center, located in Pine 1
l Bluff, Arkansas, centrally dispatches the resources cf the Operating Companies over the interconnected and integrated I
- transmission system. Peak demand in 1991 on the Entergy system ;
was approximately 11,800 MW, while available generating capacity was 15,700 MW. The operation of Entergy's nuclear generation is managed by EOI under agreements with the Operating C panies. IOI operates four nuclear units: AP&L's Arkansas Nuclear One i ! Units 1 and 2 ("ANO"), LP&L's Waterford Unit 3 ("Waterford"), and l Grand Gulf Unit 1 (" Grand Gulf"). A ninety percent share of Grand Gulf is owned by another wholly-owned Entergy public utility affiliate, System Energy Resources, Inc. ("SERI"). The above description of Entergy affiliated companies l is not all-inclusive. D. River Bend Station l The River Bend Station is a 940 MW, single unit, l boiling water nuclear electric generating station, located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. GSU holds a 70% undivided i interest (658 MW) in, and is a joint licensee of, River Bend. l Cajun currently owns a 30% undivided interest (282 MW) in and is a joint licensee of River Bend. Cajun's current total investment in River Bend is approximately $1.6 billion. Ca]un and GSU entered into the Joint Ownership, Participation and Operating Agreement ("JOPOA") on August 28, 1979. Under the JOPOA, Cajun 1 1 and GSU were to share costs, expenses and benefits of River Bend
l in proportion to their respective ownership shares. SSU is prc:ect manager with the authority and obligation to ::nstruct, l operate and maintain River Bend, sub3ect to duties, among others, to a:t in good faith and in Ca]un's best interests. E. The Arnlication For ticense Amendment To Transfer i Ocerational Control Of River Bend To EOI And The Acelication For Transfer Of Control Of Ownerinin of License On January 13, 1993, GSU filed an application (RBEXEC- l i 93-035), requesting an amendment of the River Bend Station Unit 1 l l Facility Operating License NPF-47, to reflect approval'for EDI to l l be included as a licensee of River Bend with authority to operate the facility on behalf of its owners. On July 7, 1993, the NRC issued its formal " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of I I Amendments to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing." 58 Fed. Reg. 36423, 36435-36 (1993). That Notice specified that the NRC was seeking public comment on "this proposed determination," 1.e., the no significant hazards determination. j Cajun files these Comments, etc., in response to that Federal Reaister Notice and will file its more general pleading when the NRC issues its general notice regarding the proposed license trans f e r . 'A/ Separately, with that license amendment request on , January 13, 1993, GSU filed application (RBEXEC-93-034) seeking l approval of an effective change of control over GSU, and for a license amendment to the River Bend license to reflect such 1/ See footnote 5, suora at 5. i
. _ to -
approval. The NRC issued its Notice of that filing on March 25, 1993, 55 Fed. Reg. 16246 (1993), and Ca]un filed its Comments, etc., in response to that Notice on April 26, 1993. The NRC has taken no formal action on that filing to date. However, by l
)
letter dated July 7, 1993, the Acting Chief of the NRC's Inspection and Licensing Policy Branch, Program Management, Policy Management and Analysis Staff, Ca3un was asked to respond ) to four specific inquiries related to GSU's applications to this Commission. Ca]un responded on August 2, 1993. I IV. PETITION TO INTERVEME AND REOUEST FOR HEARING A. Caiun's Intervention Should Be Granted 1 The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 10 ' C.F.R. g 2.714 (1993), permit intervention petitions by any ] person whose interest may be affected and who desires to participate as a party. The petition must set forth with l particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how the interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding (including financial or property interests), the petitioner's j l j rights under the Atomic Energy Act ("Act") and the impact of any l order on the petitioner's interest. Cajun has at least three cognizable interests which j ( will be affected by this phase of the proceeding involving the no significant hazards consideration determination.7/ l l l 2/ Ca]un has a considerable number of other vital interests in the proposed license amendment to make EOI the River Bend oserator. See footnote 5, supra at 5 f 1
l 3 First,-when Cajun prevails in the litigation surrounding its ownership of River Bend,F the relief is expected to be the payment of at least $1.6 billion to Cajun and Cajun's return of its 30 percent share of River Bend to GSU. However, Cajun cannot be totally assured that its share of River Bend will revert to GSU. Thus, Ca]un could remain an owner of River Bend, t thus having obvious interests in maintaining the safe and reliable operation of River Bend after a GSU River Bend litigation defeat. , Second, if the Texas litigation F is concluded prior to the Ca]un litigation over River Bend, Cajun could still be a 30 percent owner of River Bend when GSU suffers a S830 million l write-off related to the Texas litigation. Again, Ca]un has l obvious interests in maintaining River Bend's safe and reliable l operation, as such operation would be adversely impacted by the l Texas litigation. Third, River Bend is physically located within the service territory of one of Cajun's Members, Dixie Electric Membership Corporation ("DEMCO"). Further, DEMCO's end-use consumers reside in the geographic area surrounding River Bend. Ca]un, DEMCO and their consumers, being physically proximate to River Bend, have an interest in the continued safe and reliable operation of River Bend, as such operation would be adversely affected by the outcome of the Cajun litigation or the Texas litigation. 1/ See pages 18 to 19, infra. 1/ See page 19, infra.
B. A Hearina Should Be Conducted Prior To A retermination : On No Significant Hazards Consideration I Ca3un hereby requests a hearing as mandated by Section l l I 5 2239(a)(1)(A) (1988). l 139(a) of the Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Ca3un requests that the mandated hearing be held pric: to the final determination on these issues so that Ca3un and other interested parties may have a meaningful opportunity to ( participate and contribute to a determination of these crucial I i safety concerns. Section 189(a) of the Act states in pertinent part as follows: In any proceeding under this chapter, for the l granting, suspending, revoking, or amending i ! of any license or construction permit, or I application to transfer control, ... the Commission shall grant a hearing upon the , request of any person whose interest may be j affected by the proceeding, and shall admit any such person as a party to such proceeding. l l 42 U.S.C. 3 2239(a)(1)(A) (1988). As shown above, Ca3un has i vital interests in the license amendment occasioned by the inclusion of EOI as a licensee to use and operate River Bend. This Commission and the courts have repeatedly affirmed j the plain language of the Act which gives petitioners such as Cajun the right to a hearing in cases where applicants seek license amendments. As this Commission stated in Cenronwealth Edison Comnany: A hearing is required if the petitioners satisfy the Comnission's criteria for intervention. Petitions for hearings have been received, and Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ("Act"), provides that the Commission shall conduct a hearing at the request of persons
1 l whose interest may be affected. If the petitioners are found to have standing and come forward with at least one litigable contention, the only remaining question is l whether or not that hearing must be concluce: ; prior to initiation of the proposed decontamination [for which the license ; amendment was required]. 1 l Correnwealth Edison Comoany, (Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit l 1), CI-61-25, 14 NRC 616, 622 (1981). E.qq also Breeks v. Atomic I Enerry Commission, 476 F.2d 924, 926 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ("The language of this section clearly seems to require that the l Commission grant a hearing upon the request of any interested i pers:n.") l In this instance, not only must the Commission hold a [ hear:.ng with regard to these crucial saf ety issues , but it must t I hold the mandated hearing prior to a' final determination on 1 I
- whether significant hazards consideration are raised by the t
l proposed license amendment. It is not appropriate for this i l Commission to rush into a crucial safety finding absent a careful
- review of the relevant facts. Furthermore, there is no l
t l compelling reason for the Commission to rush to judgment on these issues. t Congress made clear that the Commission should be circumspect in the use of its authority, provided by the "Sholly 1 Amendment," to issue license amendments upon a determination of no significant hazards considerations prior to the hearing requ:. red by the Act. As the Senate Report on the Sholly Amendment made clear, the NRC was not to treat this new authority lightly: l t l l
- l 1
By including this provision, the Committee seeks to address the concern expressed by the Commission that a requirement that the NRC grant a requested hearing prior to making effective a license amendment involving no , significant hazards consideration could result in unnecessary disruption or delay in the operation of a nuclear power plant and ; could impose unnecessary regulatory burdens l upon the NRC that are not related to , significant safety benefits. Senate Report No. 97-113, reorinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3598. See also Joint Explanatory Statement of the - Committee of Conference, reorinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & f Admin. News 3607 ("These standards [of no significant hazards consideration]
... should ensure that the NRC staff does not resolve doubtful or borderline cases with a finding of no
{ significant hazards consideration.") l This is, at the very least, a borderline case in which
~
- the Commission must not rush to judgment. As Cajun shows herein, the operation of River Bend by the thinly capitalized EOI raises }
significant safety concerns. Officers of Entergy and EDI have ! admitted that in the event GSU cannot fully fund EOI operation of i River Bend, that a River Bend shutdown could occur. Furthermore, , t the Federal Reaister Notice indicates that NRC Staff has relied upon the no significant hazards consideration discussion provided by Gulf States in its application for the license amendment. See
- 58 Fed. Reg. 36436 (July 7, 1993). Yet GSU's " discussion" is a i
l mere one and two-thirds pages long and consists of nothing but conclusory statements which merely mimic the language contained , in the Commission's regulations. See Attachment 2 to GSU's January 13, 1993 Application; 10 CFR S 50.92 (1993). i I .- .- , , - ~ . - , , . -
Moreover, a hearing in this matter, prior to the Commission's decision, will not result in unnecessary disruption or delay in the operation of River Bend. GSU will continue to operate the plant during the pendency of the hearing. , Furthermore, no additional regulatory burdens or delay will be occasioned by a hearing conducted prior to the Commission's i decision. Other federal and state agencies have not concluded their regulatory procedures regarding the proposed Entergy/GSU merger. Indeed, the FERC, at a minimum, is many months away from 1 , I issuing its final order in the FERC Merger Proceedings. This I Commission is considering other issues raised by the proposed , j amendment to the River Bend license. The regulatory process ; i necessary to evaluate the Entergy/GSU merger will not be delayed by a hearing prior to a determination on the crucial safety issues which are the subject of the Commission Notice. Cajun is an interested party and has standing to j intervene in this proceeding. Cajun has raised contentions which bear upon the requested amendments which are the subject of the l Commission's Notice. Cajun has properly requested a hearing to address these issues, and therefore a hearing must be held. Cajun has raised significant safety issues which, particularly considering the lack of urgency of this case, require a hearing to be held prior to Commission action in order to ensure a meaningful opportunity to participate in these crucial safety ! i determinations. Such hearing should be conducted prior to a Commission determination of these issues. l l I
. . . . . . . - -- . J
l i i l l V. The Oreratinc ticense Arendment. as Proposed. "r Result In A Sicnificant Reduction In The Marcin Of Safer- Ar River Bend l A. The Contractual Framework For Maintain 1nc F iver gend i Oreration Is Tenuous And Does Not Recurre Entercy To Guarantee FOI Fundinc For River Bend Oreration j As discussed, GSU proposes to transfer the cperational duties and obligations for River Bend to EOI. GSU ar.d EDI propose to enter into the Operating Agreement for the provision l of those services by EOI and for payment by GSU. The Operating l Agreement provides that EOI shall take all actions necessary to I anage, control, possess, use, monitor, repair and decommission, i i and to take all actions necessary to make capital improvements at River Bend. See Operating Agreement, SS 1.13, 2.1. Because the j l Operating Agreement runs only between GSU and EOI, GSU has the i I i full obligation under the Oper. sting Agreement to compensate EDI l for River Bend operation. See id., 3 3.1. Under the Operating Agreement, EOI cannot look to Entergy or Ca]un for payment. Related to the Operating Agreement is the River Bend Guarantee Agreement, the parties to which are EOI, GSU and
)
Entergy. Under the Guarantee Agreement, Entergy " guarantees" to ! be responsible for funding EOI's activities under the Operating Agreement, however that guarantee is in effect only so long as GSU meets its payment obligations to EOI under the Operating Agreement. This specific exclusion, which makes Entergy's , I l " guarantee" totally illusory, is clear from Sections 1 and 2 of l the Guarantee Agreement:
- 1. Entergy guarantees and agrees to be responsible
, for the financial ability of Entergy Operations to l perform its obligations to Gulf States pursuant to
- said Operating Agreement, so long as Gulf States l
l l
. t meets its payment obligations to Entergy Operations under the Operating Agreement, and ;
Entergy agrees to guarantee Entergy Operations' . ability otherwise to meet its financial obligations incurred on behalf of Gulf States under the Operating Agreement, so long as Gulf States meets its payment obligations tc Entergy Operations under the Operating Agreement.
- 2. This Guarantee Agreement shall c ontinue only for ,
so long as Gulf States continues to meet its payment obligations to Entergy Cperaticns as those , obligations are set forth in said Operating , Agreement. > This loophole might not be problematic in a normal j case, however, in the River Bend situation, it is crit al. EOI is tery thinly capitalized. It has no authority to seek external i financing and its sole revenue stream related to its operation of t i River Bend is GSU's payments under the Operating Agreement. If i GSU ceases to make its Operating Agreement payments, Entergy is not obligated to financially support EOI,U' and EOI has no other [ I sources of funds to maintain safe and reliable operation of River 1 Bend, t The possibility that GSU may be unable to fund EOI operations of River Bend under the Operating Agreement is much more than an academic concern. GSU faces severe exposure from l j litigation with Cajun and from certain Texas regulatory proceedings which could render GSU bankrupt and unable to make adequate payments to EOI to maintain safe and reliable River Bend operation. l l 1 l l 12/ Indeed, Entergy has indicated that it will not financially support EOI in such a circumstance. Egg page 23, infra.
i 7
. _ is -
i B. GSU's Risks From The Cg'un Litication And "he Texas iirication Are Real And Substantial As the FERC Merger Proceeding reflects, should GSU lose the Ca]un Litigation, GSU, or its future incarnation as a l subsidiary of Entergy, will be bankrupt, with a resultant \ - l substantial detrimental impact on Entergy and its shareholders i l and ratepayers. Concomitant detrimental impacts could be expected to flow through to EOI, the proposed post-merger j operator of River Bend. f I I I
- 1. Nature Of The Caqun Lirication And Texas l Litication Ca3un currently owns a 30 percent undivided interest (282 MW) in River Bend, with a total investment in River Bend of approximately $1.6 billion. Under the JOPOA, Cajun and GSU were to share costs, expenses and benefits of River Bend in proportion to ownership. GSU is the project manager with the authority and l
obligation to construct, operate and maintain River Bend, subject l to duties, among others, to act in good faith and in Cajun's best l Interest. 1 I On June 25, 1989, Cajun filed a complaint against GSU in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, in Civil Action No. 89-474-B (" Rescission Case"). In ; that case, Cajun has requested that the JOPOA be rescinded and that damages of at least S1.6 billion be awarded to Cajun, inter alia, because of GSU's misrepresentations of material facts intended to fraudulently induce Cajun to enter into the JOPOA and obtain REA-guaranteed loans to finance the construction and l l
- . . , . . . . ~ _ , .
e l operation of River Bend. This case is scheduled to go to trial in November, 1994. On November 25, 1992, two of Ca]un's Members filed suit against GSU in Southwest Louisiana Electric Membershin Corcoration and Dixie Electric Membershic Cerroration v. Gulf ! States Utilities corranv, Civil Action No. 92-2129 (U.S.D.C. W.D. La.) (" Nullity Case"). Cajun is an intervenor in that case. In the Nullity Case, plaintiffs assert that the JOPOA is absolutely null since the JOPOA was not submitted to the Louisiana Public Service Commission ("LPSC") for its consideration, as required by i the LPSC General Order of October 28, 1968. The relief in the Nullity case is the same as that sought in the Rescission case. Placing additional strains on the GSU/Entergy financial picture is the order of the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUCT") which disallowed approximately $63.5 million of GSU River Bend plant costs and ordered the abeyance of approximately 1 S1.4 billion of GSU River Bend investment and $157 million of l l deferred River Bend costs (" Texas Litigation"). l 2. The Incact Of The Caiun Litication And The Texas Litiaation Is Substantial The Cajun Litigation and Texas Litigation are of concern not only to GSU/Entergy customers and regulators, but also to the FERC. The financial impact of the Cajun Litigation l l and the Texas Litigation was among the few matters affirmatively j set for hearing by the FERC. In its' Order on Applications issued , i ! on January 28, 1993, the FERC clearly voiced its concerns over the Cajun Litigation and the Texas Litigation stating: l l I l
In addition, Applicants have not adequately addressed the impact on costs and rates of possible adverse : Judgments which Gulf States faces both in its y litigation with Ca]un on River Bend d' and litigation ! before the Texas Commission igvolving retail rate l recovery of River Bend costs. The costs and potential rate impacts of this litigation could af f ect Entergy Corporation's risk in capital markets t (reflected in a higher cost of capital borne by i ratepayers); additionally, if Gulf States loses the ! litigation, this could result in higher rates to the . Operating Companies' ratepayers if Entergy Corporation seeks to recover the costs in rates . ' ' Gulf States' i litigation liability in these two cases of S2.4 billion ! exceeds Applicants' entire quantified pro]ected savings { from the merger (of $1.7 billion). ; i 11/ On June 26, 1989, Ca]un filed a civil action l' l against Gulf States in the U.S. District Court for ! the Middle District of Louisiana. Ca]un stated in j l its complaint that the object of the suit is to ; l annul, rescind, terminate, and/or dissolve the ! l Joint Ownership Participation and Operating Agreement entered into on August 28, 1979 (Operating Agreement) related to River Bend l because of fraud and error by Gulf States, breach of its fiduciary duties owed to Cajun, and/or Gulf States' repudiation, renunciation, abandonment, or dissolution of its core obligations under the Operating Agreement, as well as the lack or failure of cause and/or consideration for Cajun's performance under the Operating Agreement. The suit seeks to recover at least Cajun's alleged
$1.6 billion investment in the unit as damages, plus attorneys' fees, interest and costs. The district court appointed a mediator on March 31, 1992. A trial date has not been set. Section 203 l' Application, Volume 1, appendix C, Gulf States' June 30, 1992 SEC Form 10-Q at p. 8 and Gulf States' 1991 Annual Report at p. 32.
11/ In 1988, the Texas Commission, among other things, l disallowed as imprudent approximately S63.5 million of Gulf States' River Bend plant costs and placed in abeyance approximately $1.4 billion of Gulf States' River Bend plant investment and $157 million of deferred River Bend costs. Various appellate proceedings have ensued. Pending resolution of these proceedings Gulf States has made no write-off for either the disallowed costs or the costs placed in abeyance. Section 203 Application, Volume 1, appendix C, Gulf States'
l l June 30, 1992 SEC Form 10-Q at pp. 10-11 and Gulf l States' 1991 Annual Report at pp. 35-36. Applicants state that if Gulf States loses its appeal, the ccmpany might face a non-cash write-off of approximately S830 million. Louise 11e [FERC] Direct Testimony (Ex. BML-1) at p. 31. 11/ As indicated at n.56, surra, Entergy Corporation represents that Gulf States' status as a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation will insulate the other operating Companies from any direct legal liability for Gulf States' obligations and , that Entergy Corporation and its subsidiaries will not undertake any direct legal liability on behalf of Gulf States. However, the fact that Entergy , Corporation and the other operating company I subsidiaries will not undertake any direct obligations on behalf of Gulf States does not mean that they may not be indirectly affected by Gulf States' litigation risks. For example, the potential for an adverse judgment may affect 1 Entergy Corporation's risk in capital markets and, l thus, its cost of capital. The cost of capital for the parent, in turn, will affect all of the ) subsidiaries. I i 62 FERC i 61,073 at 61,370-371 (1993). Further, even the merger applicants, GSU and Entergy, l reccgnize the substantiality of the Cajun Litigation. First, the merger agreement itself recognizes that the Cajun Litigation greatly affects the benefits of the merger. Section 8.1(i) of the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization between Entergy and GSU provides, in the event of a Cajun l settlement or victory in the Cajun Litigation which adversely affects Gulf States, that Entergy can walk away from the merger. Indeed, even during the pendency of the litigation, Section 3.13) provides that if there is a significant ruling or event or 1 i the discovery of a significant fact which materially increases GSU' liability, Entergy can walk away from the merger. Further, l the Ca3un Litigation is the only specifically named litigation l l
i which can trigger the termination previsions of the merger agreement. On cross-examination at the FERC hearing, Joseph 1 Donnelly, GSU's President and Chief Ixecutive Officer, testified j that the Ca3un Litigation is a large risk if lost by GSU. l i i Additionally, Edwin A. Lupberger, Entergy's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, testified that the Ca3un Litigation was one of the two ma]or risks facing GSU.U' Without going into detail, it
]
is fair to state that numerous witnesses in the FERC proceeding testified that the Ca3un Litigation constitutes a serious risk to GSU and to the merged company. l l l Further, the impact of the Cajun Litigation and the j i Texas Litigation was thoroughly examined in the FERC testimony of Michael J. Hamilton, a partner in the Public Utilities Industry i i r 1 Services Group of Price Waterhouse. That testimony amply l , demonstrates that a judgment / settlement in Cajun's favor, anywhere in the range from $700 million to $1.6 billion, would i ! drop GSU below investment grade parameters and that a ! judgment / settlement in Cajun's favor in any substantial amount would probably render GSU bankrupt with attendant adverse impacts on Entergy. Affirmance of the PUCT in the Texas Litigation would substantially exacerbate GSU's and Entergy's financial l l deterioration. l The Cajun Litigation risks and the Texas-Litigation l risks are real and substantial. If Cajun prevails in the l l litigation, GSU would, most probably, be rendered bankrupt. i 11/ The other major risk is the Texas Litigation. l 1 i i
\
l
l
. l l
l C. Enterav And EOI Officials Have Testified That A GSU i Bankrurtev Could Result In A River Bend Shutdown I l 4 Reflecting the seriousness of this GSU bankruptcy ; i scenario, coupled with the lack of an obligation on Entergy to ; fund EDI cperation of River Bend in the case of a GSU bankruptcy, l l Entergy officials made startling admissions at the FERC merger 1 i trial. 1 Entergy's Chief Executive Officer, Edwin A. Lupberger, testified as follows in response to inquiries regarding Entergy's willingness to extend its credit to EOI in the event of a GSU l bankruptcy: Q. If the transfer of [ River Bend] responsibility I back to Gulf States is not accomplished, would Entergy financially back EOI to the extent that would be required to keep the River Bend Plant running in a safe enough and efficient manner? A. [Lupberger] I think that is something we would ! , have to determine at the time. Based on some of l t the experiences I have had over the last ten 1 years, if a particular operating entity has financial problems, the parent has not and does i not have the wherewithal to step in and financially support that operating company during I those troubled times, and our tendency would be then to probably safely shut the plant down. Q. If you chose to shut the plan down, you would be [re] moving one of your major low energy cost resources in the Entergy system, would you not? A. Gulf States would be hard pressed to meet their loads to their customers, but that is what happens j to a bankrupt company. FERC Merger Proceedings, Transcript at 524 (5/12/93).U' 11/ On redirect examination, Mr. Lupberger undertook some substantial back-pedaling by explaining that he did not ! consider the shutdown scenario likely. See id at 550. i l
)
i i i
. 1 Further, Donald C. Hintz, EOI's Chief Executive Officer, testified that a shutdown could occur in a GSU bankruptcy scenario and that the possibility of such a shutdown is an important safety consideration in NRC licensing proceedings:
Q. Accept the assumption in your report which you have identified, which is that there is an inability of Gulf States to pay its cost of operation of River Bend, if that were to happen, would that raise serious issues with the NRC regarding the safety of the unit, and could result in a long-term shutdown of the unit, I have read those words directly from the report? A. [ Hint:] There are things that can be done to reduce cost beyond what we are pro 3ecting and still run the plant safely. We could run longer outages and, if you paid no overtime and did some l things, you probably could run for less doing j that. I suppose, if there is no money available, the unit could be safely shutdown. Q. But certainly the NRC, in looking -- A. [ Hint:] And the NRC probably wouldn't have any problem with that. Q. With shutting down? A. [ Hint:] Yes. Q. The NRC, in evaluating license applications and evaluating performance of licensees, pays attention to the financial health and viability of the licensee, does it not? A. [ Hint:) Yes, it does. Q. That is an important consideration in issuing a license? A. [ Hint =} Yes, it is. Q. Would it be an important issue to the NRC in whether to modify a license or even take a license away? A. [ Hint =} It is a factor that is seriously considered by the NRC in issuing the license.
- 11 , at 1065-1067 (5/14/93).
The report to which Mr. Hint: was referring was a Ca]un exhibit in the FERC Merger Proceedings entitled, " System Energy Rescurces, Inc., Merger Opportunities Study, River Eend Operations and Economic Analysis, May 21, 1990." On page 34 of that study is its analysis of the legal issues: The poor financial condition of { Cajun), which owns a 30% interest in River Bend, and the pending litigation l between [ Cajun] and Gulf States by which [Ca]un} is l l trying to annul its purchase of its interest in River l Bend, raise very serious issues that should be weighed l heavily in any decisions made by Entergy Ccrporation i regarding merger opportunities with Gulf States or [ Cajun). The inability of either Gulf States or l [Ca]un] to pay its costs of operation of River Bend l would raise serious issues with the NRC regarding the l safety of the Unit and could result in a long-term I shutdown of the Unit. Both Entergy and EDI have identified uncertainties regarding River Bend funding which are safety issues to which the i NRC must give serious consideration. D. The NRC Cannot Make A No Sionificant Hazards Consideration Determination Without Full Ar.alysis Of River Bend's Future Safe And Reliable Oreration Based on the current record regarding the future safe and reliable operation of River Bend, the Commission cannot make l a no significant hazards consideration determination. l In GSU's January 13, 1993 license amendment i application, GSU included a one and two-thirds page " discussion" regarding that requested determination. Egg Attachment 2 to January 13, 1993 Application. That " discussion" merely recited that no changes to the physical design or operation of the plant will be made and then reaches the bald conclusion that the proposed change meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92(c).
The license amendment application did not even ment:on the potential shutdown scenario which the chief executive officers of both Entergy and EOI admitted was possible. This shortcoming is fatal to GSU's position that a no significant hazards consideration determination should be made. On this record, the NRC should not issue the requested determination. Rather, the Commission should conduct the hearing requested by Cajun to determine the level of increased risk to River Bend's safe and reliable operation which will be caused by the proposed license amendment and as argued below, := pose conditions which are necessary and appropriate to ensure safe and reliable operation of River Bend if the license amendment application is granted. The requested no significant hazards consideration determination should not be made absent such review, hearing and condit ion. VI. THE LICENSE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED AND THE NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION SHOULD BE GIVEN. ONLY UPON APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THE SAFE AND RELIABLE OPERATION OF RIVER BEND If the Commission is disposed to issue the no significant hazards consideration determination and if the Commission is further disposed to approve the requested license amendment, the Commission should impose a condition requiring l Entergy to indemnify, to extend its credit to, and to otherwise financially support GSU in the event of a Cajun victory in the l l Cajun Litigation or a GSU defeat in the Texas Litigation, or I l l
1 require Entergy to fully fund EOI's operation of River Bend to { avert a shutdown.U' First, such financial backing could avert a GSU , bankruptcy which might otherwise occur if GSU must fund a Ca]un I Judgment or weather the $830 million write-off in the Texas Litigation. GSU, in its 1991 Annual Report to Shareholders, stated that, in the event of a substantial Cajun judgment, GSU { would probably not be able to pay such a Judgment and would ; probably have to seek relief from its creditors under the l Bankruptcy Code. This bankruptcy would be accompanied by the i attendant uncertainties related to utility bankruptcies and, in this case, as discussed above, could include the spectre of l shutting down River Bend. These results should be avoided and can be avoided by Entergy financially supporting GSU in such an occurrence or by requiring Entergy to fully fund EOI operation of l River Bend in a safe and reliable fashion. Second, when GSU and Entergy entered into the merger agreement, they were keenly aware that GSU was under a substantial risk in the River Bend case. Indeed, Section 8.1(i) l of the merger agreement specifically identifies an adverse event i in the River Bend case (judgment, ruling, discovery of facts, l etc.) as an occurrence which could trigger Entergy's ability to walk away from the merger. Since Entergy was fully cognizant of the River Bend risks when it entered into the deal, it should not 11/ This could be accomplished by requiring GSU, Entergy and EOI to amend the Guarantee Agreement to remove the loophole l which currently allows Entergy to avoid funding EOI if GSU ceases payments to EOI under the Operating Agreement. l 1 l
, . , ..m .
,~r ,.
_ ~ .
, be able to insulate itself from the impacts of those risks should they become a reality.
Third, it is clear that Entergy has the legal ability to indemnify or extend its credit to GSU or to fully fund EOI to ensure safe and reliable operation at River Bend, if it so chooses or if this Commission so orders. Section 12(b) of the Public Utility Holding Company Act ("PUHCA") of 1935 provides: It shall be unlawful for any registered holding company
. directly or indirectly, to lend or in any manner extend its credit to or indemnify any company in the same holding-company system in contravention of such rules and regulations or orders as the [SEC] deems necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors or consumers or to prevent the circumvention of the provisions of this chapter or the rules, regulations, or orders thereunder.
! 15 U.S.C. S 791(b) (1988). j i ! l Clearly, under PUHCA, it is lawful for a holding l company to indemnify or extend its credit to a subsidiary so long as it does not do so in contravention of the applicable rules, regulations, and orders of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). ' Section 45(a) of the SEC's Rule U provides: No registered holding company or subsidiary company shall, directly or indirectly, lend or in any manner extend its credit to nor indemnify, nor make any donation or capital contribution to, any company in the same holding company system, except pursuant to a declaration notifying the Commission of the proposed transaction, which has become effective in accordance with the procedure specified in S 250.23, and pursuant to the order of the Commission with respect to such declaration under the applicable provisions of the Act. 17 CFR g 250.45 (1993). Section 23 of Rule U provides, among other things, that a declaration filed under 5 12(b) of PUHCA, which complies with
i i ! the applicable requirements of PUHCA and the rules and , l regulations thereunder, will be come effective by an Order which 1ssues upon the expiration of the period prescribed in the notice ; of filing. 17 CFR g 250.23 (1993), The SEC may order a hearing, !
\
in which event the declaration does not become ef fect:Je until t further order. ; Therefore, Section 12(b) of the PUHCA and the regulations thereunder clearly permit a holding company to , e guarantee the obligations of a subsidiary. The stature simply prevides that it may not do so in contravention of the applicable rules of the SEC. The law does not stand in the way cf Entergy either guaranteeing satisfaction of GSU's contingent liability to Ca3un or in the Texas Litigation, or fully funding EO!'s i operation of River Bend, which could be accomplished through an i amendment to Sections 1 and 2 of the Guarantee Agreement to l remove the non-GSU payment loophole. l l Such conditions should be imposed by this Commission if I 1 it is disposed to issue the no significant hazards consideration f 1 l determination or approve the proposed license amend:en . i ! l VI!. CONCLUSION l l Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, Cajun Electric l Power Cooperative, Inc., respectfully requests that the Commission:
- 1. Grant Cajun's requested intervention in this proceeding for all purposes;
- 2. Order a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether the requested no significant hazards consideration determination should be granted and whether the requested license amendment to effect EOI operation of River Bend should be granted;
- . . . -.- .. - -, ~
i l
- l l 3. Impose on the issuance of the no significant i
hazards consideration determination and the approval of the proposed license amendment, a condition which would (a) require Entergy to extend its credit to, indemnify and otherwise financially support GSU in the event GSU loses the Ca]un Litigation or the Texas Litigation, and/or (b) require Entergy to fully fund EOI cperation of River Bend to ensure its safe and reliable operation; and
- 4. Grant such other relief as the Commission deems appropriate.
Dated: August 6, 1993 Respectfully submitted, l l Q f) 0 .-l Jamis DT Pemoroke l Janice L. Lower l Thomas L. Rudebusch i DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER
& PEMBROKE, P.C.
1615 M Street, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 l (202) 467-6370 Attorneys for Ca]un Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
4 a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ! I hereby certify that I have this day served the I foregoing document upon each person designated on the official I service list in this proceeding by U.S. Mail. Dated at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of August, 1993. l l I d 1 Jasf(es D. Pembroke l DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER I
& PEMBROKE, P.C.
1615 M Street, N.W. l Suite 800 l Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-6370 l
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE , NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
.- .) --
In the Matter of ) -.
)
Gulf States Utilities Company ) Docket Nc7050-458
)
(River Bend Station) ) I.C'. .
.s
)
7
\/N .
s, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE C -- 5 N JO In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.753(b) theU undersigned attorney enters an appearance in she oveO i captioned proceeding and supplies the fcllow1Eg iq ormE. tion: E m : Name: James D. Pembroke r y 'l ; n ? l Address: Duncan, Weinberg, Miller & Pembrokes F.C. i 1615 M Street, N.W. bJ c. Suite 800 ! Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone No.. (202) 467-6370 (202) 467-6379 (Fax) Admissions: United States Supreme Court United States District Court for the i District of Columbia Circuit l Name of Party: Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. 10719 Airline Highway P.O. Box 15540 Baton Rouge, LA 70895 Dated: August 6, 1993 Respectfully submitted, oP Jamdf D. Pembroke DUNCAN, WEINBERG, MILLER & PEMBROKE, P.C. 1615 M Street, N.W., Ste. 800 0 6 63b Attorneys for Ca]un Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. l l t
4 r 36423 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No.128 / Wednesday. July 7,1993 / Notices , Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of NUCLEAR REGULATORY ' IFR Doc. 93-15997 Filed 7-&S3. 8.45 aml COMMISSION June.1993.
. eno, ,,_ Devid C. Zeigler.
s Biweekly Notice of Appilestions and l Acrme Assistant Secretary. a g
\ A ed e s e ty Occupational Safety and Health !FR Doc. 93-15998 Filed 7-GG3. 8.45 ami A:' ministration numa coot asme Hazards Considerations NItiorni Advisory Coqtmittee on I. Background i l
Occupational Safety arid Health / Pursuant to Public Law 97-415. the
\ NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j AGENev: Occupational Safety and Health SPACE ADMINISTRATI (the Commission or NRC staff)is Administration (OSHA).U.i PuMng h Wa@iweeW h Department of Labor, ! Notice 93-0591 Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as ACTION: Request for nominati NASA Advisory Co cil(N AC), amended (the Act), to require the extension of time for submissioi ts. Aeronautics Advis Committee Commission to publish notice of any ,
\ (AAC); Meeting amendments issued, or proposed to be
SUMMARY
- On June 1.1993,the Asyistant issued under a new provision of section Secretary of Labor for Occupanona AGENCY:Nationa Aeronautics and 189 of the Act. This provision grants the J Safety and Health published d a noti Space (oAdminist tion. Commission the authonty to issue and ;
requestmg nominations for membership ACTION: Notice imeeting. make immediately effective any [ on tne National Advisory Committee n ! amendment to an operating license Occupational Safety and Health
SUMMARY
- In rdance with the Federal Adv' ory Committee Act. Pub. upon a determination by the (NACOSH). Nominations were to be Commission that such amendment ,
submitted by June 30,1993.That L.92-463, amended, the National I involves no significant hazards deadline is now extended 30 days until Antonauti and Space Administration consideration, notwithstanding the July 30. .nnounce a forthcoming meeting of the pendency before the Commission of a ; NACOSH was established under 7(a) N6SA A visory Council. Aeronautics request for a hearing from any person. ! of the Occupational Safety and Health Adviso s Committee. This biweekly notice includes all . Act of 1970 to advise the ' Secretary oi DATtLS: ugust 4.1993. 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. notices of amendments issued, or Labor and the Secretary of Health and s . . ADOR SES: proposed to be issued from June 14 Human Services on matters relating to dmm, National istration. RoomAeronautics 6H46. 300 1993, and through June 24.1993. The last . SPac the edministration of the Act. E S* et, SW., Washington, DC 20546. biweekly notice was published on June Nom.mations willbe acapted for 12 R INFORMATION CONTACT: 23.1993 (58 FR 34069). r0 FU vacancies occurring in the followmg Notice of Consideration oflasaance of , categories: Four public tspresentatives; h .Cathe e Smith. Office of . Amendments to Facility Operating i eronautics National Aeronautics and two management representatives: two Pace Admin tration. Washington DC Licename. Proposed No Significant labor representatives: two occupational 501). Hazards Consideration Determination, 20546(202/55 safety representatives; and two and Opportunity for a Hearing c occupational health representatives. Th SUPPLEMENTARY FORMATION:The meeting will be o en to the public up The Commission has made a , terms for six members willbe for one ; to the seating capa -ity of the room. The proposed determination that the year and the terms for the remaining si following amendment requests involve - members will be for two years. Any agenda for the meet g is as follows: interested person or organization ma -Aeronautics Updat no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in ! nominate one or more qualified pers ns -High Speed Researt. Plan 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation for membership. Nominees should e -RotorcraftTechnol Roadmap identified by name, place of birth. of the facility in accordance with the
-Subsonic and Transo ic Facilities proposed amendment would not (1) occupat on or position, address, d -Computational Aero 'ences Planning involve a significant increase in the ,
telephone number.The category hich i the candidate would represent s uld -Final Report on U.S. neral Aviation pmbability or consequences of an Task Force accident p'reviously evaluated; or (2) be specified and a resume of th nominee's background, experie ce. and -NASA Involvement in h anufacturing create the possibility of a new or I Technology different kind of accident from any qualifications included. In ad .tlon. the
-Situational Awareness Research accident previously evaluated; or (3) l nomination stiould state that ie involve a significant reduction in a
! nominee is aware of the nomination and -Future Program Directions is willing to serve as a comrdittee -Future AACEmphasis margin of safety.The basis for this member for a two year tens prop sed determination for each It is imperative that the meeting be am d q estis sho bel DATES: Nominations must be submitted held on this date to accommodate the no later than July 30.1993. scheduling priorities of the key comments on this proposed parucipants. determination. Any comments received ADDRESSES: Nominations should be within 30 days after the date of submitted to Tcm Hall. Division of Dated: lune 30.1993. l Consumer Affairs. Office ofInformation nmothy M. Sultivan, publication df this notice will be l Advisory Committee Monocement Officer. considered in making any final , and Consumer Affairs. Occupational ' Safety and Health Administration, room National Aeronounes ondspace determinatists. Administrarmn. Normally, ti.* Commission will not N-3647. U.S. Department of Labor. 200 Constitution Avenue.NW., Washington [FR Doc 93-16000 Tiled 7.-G-93; 8A5 ami issue the amendn.Mt until the sumo cooc vsmi expiration of the 30.oey notice period. DC 20210. I
r I ' s424 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No.128 / Wednesday. Julv 7.1993 / Notices i wer. ha:cid circumstances chance rentwn: end the Secretary er the mn2 ta nctice penod such that These remutted to intervene become < cesmnateo Alamic Safety and Licensmg partes to the proceedmg. subiect to anv '
- .ure to act in a timely way would z.t for exampie. in derattr.g or Cmra will issue a notice of a heanng or i.rmtat:tns m the order granting ieau tn en e nrennste order. interver . and have the opportuna ,
2.sn of the facdty ma L equarca t>y 10 CFR 2114. a pan:c:p ::e :eily m the conduct of tL w.cn mav ir .ue the license ptitinn for !cne to intervene s hall so t heann. .:.aad mg the opportumt v to dmerc before the exmr tion cf the ' rm with pr iculanty the interest of prese-t mcence and cross-examme r.y rne pened, proiiued that its the petitioner m the proceedmg. I.nd witnesses. a cuern.mttlan .s that the hw t*iat rr.terest may be affacted by the if a riearma is recuested, the waarr.ent involves no swmhcant resu!:s of the proceeding. The petition Camne:::n s.ill make a final m:a cs conudernion. The final should specificady explain tna reasons determa.at.cn on the issue cf no demm.matica will consider all public why intervention should be permitted m;nifimr.t hazards consideration. Tne na 2tMe commer.ts received before mth particular reference to the ac: ion is tcLen. Should the Commissicn foi!owmg facters:(1) the nature at the hnni anemmation will serve to decide w hen tr.e nennne is held. tle this action, it will pubbsh in the petitioner's right under the Act to be !! the f:rul determination is that the
!Weral Ratster a notice of issuance made a party to the proceeding; (2) the n.endment request involves no
- .nd provide for oppanunity for a nature and extent of the petitioner's signific:nt hazards consideration. the heanna after issuance. ne Cummission prcpeny. financial, or other interest in Com:russion may issue the amendment ancts that the need to take this acnon the proceeding: and (3) the possible and make it immediately effective, w ill occur very infrecuently. effect of any crder which may be notwithstandmg the request for a Wntien comments 'may be st.bmitted entered in the proceeding on the by rnail to the Rules Review and heanng. Any hearing held would take pet:tioner's interest. The petition should place arter issuance of the amendment.
Direenves Branch. Division of Freedom also identify the specific aspect (s) of the If the final determination is that the ofinformation and Publications subject matter of the proceeding as to amendment request involves a Sumtes. Office of Administration. U.S. which petitioner wishes to intervene. significant hazards consideration, any Nuclaar Reculatory Commission. Any person who has filed a petition for heanng held would take place oefore
' Washincon. DC 20555, and should cite leave to intervene or who has been the issuance of any amendment.
the publication date and page number of admitted as a party may amend the A request for a heanng or a petition this Federal Register notice. Written petition without requesting leave of the I
' comments may also be delivered to forleave to intervene must be filed with Board up to 15 days prior to the first the Secretary of the Commission. U.S.
Room P 223. Phillips Building,7920 preheanng conference scheduled in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Norfolk Avenue.Bethesda, Maryland proceeding, but such an amended Washington.DC20555. Attention: from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal petition must satisfy the specificity workdays. Copies of wntten comments Docketing and Services Branch, or may requirements described above. be delivered to the Commission's Public received may be examined at the NRC Not later than 15 days prior to the first Document Room, the Celman Building. Public Document Room. the Gelmr.n prehearing conference scheduled in the 2120 L Street. NW., Washington DC Building. 2120 L Street. NW.. proceeding, a petitioner shall file a
- 20555. by the above date. Where Washington, DC 20555. The filing of supplement to the petition to intervene petitions are filed during the last to requests for a bearing and petitions for which must include a list of the days of the notice period. It is requested leave to intervene is discussed below. contentions which are sought to be that the peutioner promptly so inform By August 6.1993, the licensee may litigated in the matter. Each contention file a request for a hearing with respect the Commission by a toll-free telephone must consist of a specific statement of call to Western Union at 14800) 248-to issuance of the amendment to the the issue of law or fact to be raised or subject facility operating license and $100 (in Missouri 1-{800)342-67001, any person whose interest may be controverted. In addition, the petitioner The Western Union operator should be shall provide a brief explanation of the given Datagram identification Number c!fected by this proceeding and who j bases of the contention and a concise N1023 and the following message wishes to participate as a pany in the statement of the alleged facts or expert proceeding must file a written request addressed to (Project Director):
opinion which support the contention petitioner's name and telephone for a heanng and a petition for leave to and on which the petitioner intends to J intervene. Raquests for a hearing and a rely in proving the contention at the number. date petition was mailed, plant petition for leave to intervene shall be name. and publication date and page huanng. The petitioner must also number of this Federal Register notice. J filed in acrordana with the provide references to those specific Commission's Rules of Practice for A copy of the petition should also be sources and documents of which the sent to the Office of the General Domestic Licensing Proceedings"in to petitioner is aware and on which the CFR Part 2. Interested persons should Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory petitioner intends to rely to establish Commission. Washington DC 20555, consult a current copy of t o CFR 2.714 those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner and to the attorney for the licensee. which is available at the Commission's must provide sufficient information to
]
Public Document Room. the Gelman Nontimely filings of petitions for show that a genuine dispute exists with leave to intervene, amended petitions. Building. 2120 L Street. NW.. the applicant on a material issue of law
} Washington. DC 20555 and at the local supplemental petitions and/or requests or fact. Contentions shall be limited to for a hearing will not be entenained public document roorn for the particular matters within the scope of the absent a determination by the
; facility involved. If a request for a amendment under consideration. The Commission. the presiding officer or the
' heanng or pention for leave to intervene contention must be one which. if is filed by the above date, the Atomic Safety and Licensmg Board that proven, would entitle the petitioner to Commission or an Atomic Safety and relief. A petitioner who fails to file such the petition and/or reguest should be
, Licensing Baard, designated by the a supplement which satisfies these granted based upon a t>alancing of
] Commission or by the Chairman of the factors specified in 10 CFR Atomic Safety and Licensing Board requirements with respect to at least one 2.714(al(11bl4v) and 2.714(d).
contention will not be permitted to For funher details with respect to this Panel. wdl rule on the request and/or panicipate as a party. action see the application for 4
'I
/.
[ Federal Register / Vol. 58. No.128 / Wednesday July 7.1993 / Notices 36425 t ! allowable value MSIVLTIP setpoint imm reactor in STARTUPI will not be bypassed cmendment which is available for befom ras psig is exceeoed. This pressure is C public inspection at the Commission's greater than or equano 680 to greater trian or equal to 810 psig. the minimum pressure for using the Public Document Room, the Gelman otential effects were analyzed: minimum cntical power ratio (MCPR) as the Building. 2120 L Street. NW., Other[ucing
- a. Re the MSIVLTIP setpoint basis for fuel cladding protection. Below this '
Wasnincton. DC 20555. and at the local will have noimpact on the Minimum pressure, the scram at less than 25% of rated public document room for the particular Critical Power Ratio (MCPR). As noted Power provides the basis for protecting fuel facility involved. 'I*ddm In the analysis iNEDO-31296), MSIV B Boston Edison Company. Docket No. closure following a pressure regulator analyses, reducing the MSIVLTIP setpoint ; 50-293. Pih; rim Nuclear Power Station, failure transient with the current from greater than or equal to 880 psig and ; Ph mouth County, Massachusetts setpoint of greater than or equal to 880 reducma the mmimum pressure in the RtJN sig corresponds to a neutron flux of mode definition to 785 psig will not result in n of amendment request:May 20 ute [ess than 1% This result is based on the a sigmficant inaease in the probability or 1993 consequences of an scrident previously Description of amendment request: assum,s)ption g oPen instantaneously TurbineuponControl Valvesid*".2 The'ifi*d-operauon ofI,ilgrim Station in The proposed amendment reduces the failure of the pressure regulator. A gower accordance with the proposed amendment rnain steam isolation valve low turbine setpoint will postpone MSIV closure. will not create the possibility of a new or inlet pressure (MSIVUnP) setpoint from 11 wever,this postponement is not of different Lind of accident from any accident greater than or e9ual to 880 Pounds per concern because MCPR is not near the previously analvzed. square inch gauge (ps:.g ) to greater than safety limit due to the very low reactor This proposed chance modifies an existing I cr ecual to ato psig, and reduces the instrument setpoint and reduces the powers involved and remain bounded minimum pressure for the reactor to be m,the minimum pressure in the definition of bYthe MCPR associated with the RUN mooe frorn 680 psig to 785 psig. . RUN mode. No other modifications to ,
" asis (cr proposed no sicmficant trans@nts in the reload license Pilgnm are involved. All plant scenanos ,
submittal. This conclusion rernains affected by this setpomt have been I Mards consJdemtson defermanot:on: valid in the event the TC\ ,s open reanulyzed as cesenbed in the above Part 1. ,
?.s requ: red by 10 CI~R 50.91(a) the For this reasonit is concluded that this 61 wly.
licensee has Frovided its analysis of the b. Reducmg the MSiv low-pressure change does not create a new or different - issue of no sicnificant, hazards isolation setpomt does result in an extended Lind of accident from any accident !
=nsideration, which as presented depressurization time prior to isolation. An previously analyzed.
below: extended depressurization results in a greater 3.The operation of Pilgrim Station in L The operati:n of Pil:: rim Station in bulk water level swell with the potential of accordance with the proposed amendment 6
.iccctdatice with the prcposed reaching the stem line nozzle. thereby will not invnive a significant reduction in the !
amendment will not involve a trapping liquid in the steam line between the margin of safety. t vessel and the in-board MSIV. However, a GE As discussed in (1). the MSIVLTIP setpoint ! significant increase in the probability or does not affect the safety function of the analysis of this event (MDE-70-c5ss), using , co.nsequences of an acc2 dent PreviouslY a bounding set of~ initial conditions chosen to primary containment and reactor vessel
~
toentified. maximize the seventy of the water level isolation control system and assessments of The MSivLTIP setpoint is associated with swell shows water level will not increase to radiological releases related to 10CFR100 i the primary contamment and reactor vessel the bottom of the steem line nozzle elevation. requirements do not take credit for it. Also, isolation control system. The safety purpose Hence, no liquid would be trapped in the the MSIVLTIP does not affect the margin of of this system is to automatically initiate steam lines,and SRV performance would not safety for any system or component that is riosurn of isoiation valves to ensure be affected. indirectly impacted by this setpoint function i radiolonical releases to the environs are less c. If the MSIV low pressure isolation and the minimum pressure in which the l th:n the maximum illowed by 10CFR100. setpoint were removed, a rapid reactor mode switch may be in RUN remains i However, the M5NLTIP setpomt does not depressurization of the reactor vessel due to consistent with the bases for ensunng the a:fect the safety function of the pnmary a pressure regulator failure while the reactor integnty of the fuel cladding. Therefore, contamment and reactor vessel isolation is near full power could result in differential operating Pilgnm in accordance with the control system. While the MSIV low-pressure pressures across the fuel channels sufScient proposed channes does not involve a setpour can initiate isolation of the pnmary to cause mechanical deformation of the significant reduction in the margin of safety. l contamment and reactor vessel, assessments ,hannels. Frem a safety perspective these The NRC staff has reviewed the i of radiolrxical releases do not take credit for deformations are bounded by the licensee's analysis, and based on this , cutomauc ismation initiated by a tnp of the deformations ass 9ciated with the steam line review it appe'ars that the three MS;V low-pressure setpo:nt. For the design break accident and do not challenge Pilgrim's standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Lasis steum line break. raoiological releases accident analysis. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to , are assessed assummg automatic isolation d. Reducmg the MSIV low-pressure . determine that the amendment request I initiated by a high steam line flow rate. For setpoint to greater than or equal to 810 psig involves no significant har.ards j a small steam line break radiological releases continues to provide automatic protection of consideration. < are essessed assummg autornatic isolation the low-pressure core thermal power safety initiated by high raoiation in the steam limit (less than or equal to 25% of rated core localPublicDocument Room i tunnes or his.h temperature m the turbine thermal power for reactor pressure less than location: Plymouth Pualic Library.11 l building. MSIVLTIP setpomt is nevertheless 785 psig). North Street. Plymouth, Massachusetts ' I important to power operations. The The other proposed change reduces the 02360. MSIVLTIP setpoint prevents excessive vessel minimum pressure in the definition of RUN Attorneyforlicensee: W. S. Stowe, depressunzation snould the nuclear system mode from 880 psig to 785 psig. Reactor Esquire. Boston Edison Company, fiU0 pressure meulator fail open. Excessive vessel modes are determmed by the position of the Boylston Street. 30th Floor. Boston. { depressunzation can impose sigmficant mode switch. The safety functmn of the Massachusetts 02199. I thermal stresses on the nuclear system mode switch is to sesect the necessary scrarn NTfC Project Directorf Walter R. Butler i pronst earner. resulting in an increase in the functior.s for vanous plant conditions. The j nuclear system process carner's lifetime mode switch also provides necessary scram Boston Edison Company. Docket No. fatigue usage factor. NEDO-31296 and IlECO bypasses to facilitate operation. 50-293. Pilgrim Nuclear Po r Station. calculation 1-N1-30 show the lifetime fatigue Reducing the minimum pressure of the Plymouth County, Massa setts usage factor, assuming eight pressure reactor to be in the RUN mode affects none l reguiator failure (open) events. As not of these functions. Specifically, the scram on Dofe of amendment te est: June 7 ; i sigruficantly increased by reducmg the high flux at less than 25% power (with the 1993 ; I l 1 i
m l
- I
! Federr.d Redster / *.'al. 33. No.128 i Wednesdaw. July 7. 231 Ltices 3M35 f e .r.rrrr a:.:n r.wrurs rt:er.: rnd are tte i aae Em IDCA ar.d u Therefore. tne MC staff pmposes to
.x .ev c:nbn:nent st .:c+ur.d .nturity re.a.ns it:e t~aac.ng water ment tre nW2 determina tuat tLe amenamont request 4 md tm m ett en tre enaa.ev r.! nama rase witn a W conta:nracnt .nvdves i.o s adcant haz.ards nc; n m ,nyn 2.:c u.ctnt: and tne I nsire ut 4 9 rs:: ano the litrNed i &hrain ,
vvter.ce ut any w ri >.n cr e. :m nc-t esien rmsura tt Gim i
+.11 eve :t nrmod :v evalua:ea in 19e : annnues to satisfy tae enamas AEL g x g=C ,en, j;gg, !
l l '#ro V::ai L.fr. Anaina Rc;mnl FS AR cactaa.iment stmeteai mannn cntenon g,noa: Ebnca 1 sterna 12onal
+
s nct vea :ncreases ~ ia tucn rvma:ns tne cunen N (C cnter: p6 of I e erstv. L r vers 2tv Park, hijam2. ~ i needune t :nm., brQless of Csoient IC A no new or citierent kind of acc2ct. t Flmtia 33109 l Mesu U.W remams the .. s % n c: cates. Conhecat nt2y. tne u at a Marnev 9r :::enser:Haroid F. Reis. l cuncing tw.sa:nent t. %nt ana:ysis case u,s.taimner.t det.zn p: essure equsi to .* hire. Newr.an ano Hohzer, P.C.. en a r.m c:.ntainrr.ent ;- .ssure et4a9 or:gmaii. censed pmsare of 55 psia )&no the 15151 Ltreet. NN., Washington, DC
- ca aad the anta:n: cent o ign pr-ssure of essociated mmirnum re7.nred prestrfn ,0036 0 nu ctatues to ses v t. e ong:nal1and 8
frees for it;n con'amment post. ten onma A l centi Atmic Ene ry Comngission ( AEQ system) wul nut create the pouiR ty at a lliC Pm!rc Dhector: Herbert N. wucturni rr.2 san cruenon of t(E the use of ne v or oifferent kind of accident rom any DefEDW 4 contaminent dengn pmsure equal to tha a; : dent prenously evaluated in he Updatad Gulf States Utilities Company. Docket or:gmal licensed vame cf 55 psig(and the FS R assouated inuu=um rectured prgress A technir2.1 chanae has been 'roposed for No. 50 458, River Bend Station Unit 1* ! farnes for the cantament post-tens (oning BASES 3/4.6.1.4 to lirnit the i stial West Fehn.m Parish, Louisiana l sys*eral wul cat incease the consgurnces of contamment pmsure condatpns to be Dcte of cme:'dment request: January l ..n accent previousiy analyzad in th l t'pd.ited FSAIL consistent with the stated 140. His will 13 1993 requue changmg the conserystively j>senPtien of amendment request-A rnmor tecnnical chans;e has been bouinding vaiue of +5.0 ps g to +3.0 psag for prconsed far e ASES 3/4 6.1.5 to irmit the\ maximurn init.al contam . ent pressure. The The pmposed a nendment would revise mal cwamrnant pressure conditions to original boundmg LOC, analyses did not the hcense to retaect a change in mnsistent witn the stated L.imstma resy on the value cf +5 psig. and an initial ownership of Gulf States Utilitics (CSUL Conaittor.s ior Operunon ilEDI of ITectical contamment pesure if up to +3 o psig Upon appmval by the NRC and other S;w: fiat 2ans! TS 3 61.4. This wdl rage (which support the requirement 4 will mgulatory evenc[es.CSU, which owns a cnangmg tne conservatn e bounomg value of not result an a post. ct pressure that
+5 0 pstg to +3.0 psig for maumum mitial 70 percent t$ncivided interest in River iceds the hce destas pressure of 55 g gg* g gg , ,
contamment pressure TA 3.6.1.4 states that ig. For these reasons, this change m BASES pnmary coetunment internal pressure shnu / wned subsidiary company of Entergy l he mamtamed (belowi +3 psig." ne ocaginal 3 9.s.tA will not cente the possibility of a Corporation.The hcense would be Wmmng IIX;A analyses md not rely on the nog or differen ' kind of accident from any accitlent previ sly evaluated in the Updated changed by adding a footnote that value of +5A ps:g, and an initial containment FSA4 desenbes this thange in ownership of pressure of up to +3.0 psig (which suppwis (3) Operat' n of the facility in accordance the tEO requirements) win not result to a GSU. The merger will not affect the with ' ed amendmoot would not ownership, desagn, or operation of the ["M 'N [ N N3 $these No aa""* duct *" 18 th' '"8#5 8 River Band Statloa.The opportunity to
- reasons. this change in B ASES 3/4.6.1.4 will have no efiscs on the pmbabilityof d W FirdID*.Aandysis Provide com:nents orinformation remain thht-mimg contairunnnt transient relating to any antitrust issues believed ,
- occummce of any initzs'dng accident and it to be raised by the GSU ownership
' andy cai mil not incesse the consequences of an te of ekwith prest 9 psigaand ped thecontahment limnsed rhnnge was noticed in the Federal accident prmously analysed in the Updated cxi inment design pressure of 55 psig Register on March 25.1993 (58 FR Final Safety Analysis Report fUFSARI. tn addition.the empatnhties of Engmeemd co nues to saksfy the original (and cunent) 1624GL The opportunity,if any, for A structurst inargm citerion of 10%, the intervention and a bearing in f" (([{* and the condssians of UFSARSections 6.3 of a matemnhntdesiga pressure equal
*" '8 connection with antitrust issues will be the subject of a Federal Register notice (n th esociated nanum ;
and 4L4 samaanunchanged. Engineered . prentrw h fx ' matainment p at the appropriate trme. Sainty Features equipsmant has been des Basisforproposed rio significonf tensioning system) wi have no effect on the to Provide acape perbrme and is margin of safety frorn t previously hozords determmatierr: As required by ) qualified for a pressure of 59 psig. which licensed by the AEC and ocmnented in the 10 CFR 50.91(a),the limnses has envelopes the originallicensed containm t original operating ticense provided its analysis of the issue of no desir,n pressureof 55 png.Comaquently no A mmer techmcal chang has been signifirmnt hazards consideration. The s.dd'IEth ! in M r $ 7n sp " Pr Posed for B ASES 3/4.6.1. to limit the NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's tantainment design pressme would occur, untialomitainment pmssure . pas te analysis er,sinst the standards of 10 CTR j and no increase in the masoquences any Co d Opera o of T 6.1.4. This SDE2M N MtaFs miew is 1 accident would be erpected. (2) Operation of the facility in oc rdance wiu require changir:g thecons atively Presented below: . , bounding value of +5.0 psig to + .0 psig for 1. The proposed change would not I with the pmposed amendment w d not '
' rnaximum initial containment p sure. no increase the probability or consequences no of acc a y acri nt original bmmdrng 1OCA analyses 'd not of a previously evalueted accident.
prnid Wd rely on the value of +5.0 psig, and . initial As a resultof the proposed license i The contamment structure has been wntainmem pressum of up t +3s psiR amendment. there will be no physical I dessned as one of three principal fission (which support the ILO requirements) wdl change to the River Bend facility, and
!>arners to ensure that oHsite doses resulting n t usult an a pomaccadent premim &at all limiting conditions for operation.
from pipe creak events within motainment exceeds the hcensed design pressure of 55 psig. For thae masons, this d.ange in BASES g g g do not result in offsite doses m excess of the safety limits fled in the technical
- to CFR Part 100 Limits. The manmum s mh any reductama i
, spec fication I remain unchanged.
o ensum t The NRC staN has reviewed the 2.The proposed change would not j t bli es structural imetrity of containment is not licensee's analyns and, based on thn, create the possibility of a new or { i compmnused followmg an accidental review,it appears that the three different kind of accident from any l rrrssurization of this structure. standards of 50.92lc) are satisfied. previously evaluated. i i r
i ' 36436 Federal Register / Vol. S8. No.128 / Wednesday, July 7.1993 / Notices ne proposed amendment will have I nse to prohibit EO! from marketing 3. The proposea change would not no effect on the physical configuration o rokenng power or energy from the involve a significast reduction in the of River Bend or the manner in which pl . In addition, the license condition margin of safety, it will operate.The plant design and wodld indicate that all licensees other Plant safety marnns are established design basis will remain the same. The thanTOI are responsible and through limiting a ndXions for current plant safety analyses will
~
accoubtable for the actions of their agent operation. limitma safety system therefore remain complete and accurate to the hxtent said agent's actions effect settings, and safet mits specified in - in addressing the design basis events the marketing or brokering of power and the technical sp ications. There will and in analyzma plant response and energy fmm River Bend Station. be no change to e physicaldesign or consequences. The limiting conditions Basis f2gproposed no significant peration of t pu nt or to any of these ; for operation, limiting safety system * *'E* '- , settings, and safety limits speci6ed in hazards considemtion determination: As required}y 10 CFR 50.91(a), the Based o e nw. h appears that tha technical specfications are not the th l affected by the proposed amendment. licensee has provided its analysis of the , tandards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) As such, the plant conditions for which Issue of no sisificant hazards are satt admeem.ee NRC staff prop es to determ;ce that the ' the design basis accident analyses have consideration. Khe NRC staff has am reviewed the licensee's analysis against nt mquest in@es no i been erformed will remain valid.
- 3. e proposed change would not involve a signiScant reduction in the tha standards of fg CFR 50.92(c).The NRC staff's reviewis presented below:
"[a e " "
margin of safety. 1.he pmPosed ange would not 1 cation:Covernme it Documents Department. Louisir.ns State University, ! Plant safety inargins are established increase the probabill(y or consequenc .s Baton Rouge Loumana 70803 ; through limiting conditions for Of
- previously evaluatyd accident. Attorneyforlicensee: Mark !
operation, limiting safety system The employees of CSlJ presently Wetterhahn, Esq. B: shop. Cook. Purcell settings and safety timits specified in engaged in the operationbf River end and Reynolds.1401 L Street. N.W., the technical spectications. Sinm there will become employees ofEOL Washincton. D.C. ::005 i will be no chance to the physical design Personnel qualification, thke re will NRCPmfect Dimtor: Suzanne C l or operation of the plant, there will be remain the same as those di' ssed in Black no change to env of these margins. the technical specification and the Based on this' review,it appears that Updated Final Safety An ysis%eport. Houston Lighting & Power Company. City Public Service lloard of San ' ths three standards of to CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff The organizational strup ure of KO! will Antonio. Central Power and Light : proposes to determine that the provide for clear man e,ement cogtrol Co;npany. City of Austin. Texas. Docket and effective lines o authority an ! amendment request involves no communication a ong the Nos. 50-498 and 50-499. South Texas significant hazards mnsideration, Project. Units 1 and 2. Matagorda organizational u its involved in the \ County. Texas LocalPublicDocument Room management, ration, and techni i location:Govemment Documents support of Date of applicatsonfor amendment D3partment, Louisiana State University, technical alifications facility.ofAccordingly. EOl will be a y M 27.1M3 Baton Rouge. louisiana 70803 least equi alent to those of GSU , scription of amendment request: ) j Attorneyfor licensee: Mark 1 present . As a result of the proposed 11 uston Lighting & Power Company, t Wetterhahn.Esq., Bishop. Cook Purcell amen set.al., (the licensee or HL&P) requests i and Reynolds.1401 L Street.N.W.. ent, there will be no hysical chan s to the facility, and al limiting amendments to the South Texas Proj,ect. , Washington. D.C. 20005 ! NBCProject Director: Suzanne C con itions for operation, limiting safety Units 1 and 2. Technical Specifications sy em settings, and safety limits (TS) to upgrade the fuel used in the . Black ; fled in the technical specifications S hih Texas Project reactors to : Gulf States Utilities Company. Docket ill remain unchanged. With the Weslinghouse VANTAGE 5 Hybrid > No. 50-458. River Bend Station. Unit 1 exception of administrative changes to (V5HKdesign and to implement several
- l West Feliciana Parish. Louisiana reflect the role of EOI.the quality edytical and operational upgrades into '
Date of amendment request: January 8SSur8nce Program, the emergency plan
- the South Texas Project Updated Final !
13.1993 s curity plan, and training program are Safety Aftelysis Report (UFSAR). In , Desenprion of amendment requ -tr unaffected. Operating aFreements will ordedo Umplid bis. 6dimee i l ' The proposed amendment woul vise ensure c ntinued compliance with roposes to'tnodify related setpoints. I the license to include Entergy General Design Critenon 17 as weH as imiting conditions for operation. l l Operations. Inc. [EOI), as a li see and EOI control over all activities within the surveillance requirements, design ! e usion area' features information, and associated ' would authorize EOI.as age for the owners to use and operate 'ver Bend 2.The proposed change would not bases in the folldymg specifications: TS Station and to possess create the possibility of a new or Table 2.2-1. " Reactor Trip System use related , licensed nuclear mater s. EDIis a different kind of accident from any Instrumentation Trip Setpoints." TS ! previously evaluated. Figure 3.1-1. "Requaed Shutdown !
- wholly owned subsid' y of Entergy l Corporaticn whose nction would be to Margin for Modes 1 ahd 2."TS Figure i
The limiting conditions for operation. 3.12. " Required Shutdown Margin for [ serve as the manc~ ng agent for River limiting safety system settings, and ' Bend. At the tim of effectiveness, Mode 5." TS Figure 3.1-2a. "Mit safety limits are not affected by the versus Power Level." TS 1/4.2.5.
- responsibility f the management. proposed amendment. With the ,
l cperation. maintenance of River " Power Distribution LimitA- DND : exception of administrative changes to Parameters." TS Table 3.3-4 ! Bend would ransfer to EOI from Gulf reflect the role of EOl. plant procedures " Engineered Safety Features ctuation States UtiHties (CSU). are unaffected. As such, the plant System Instrumentation Trip In ordsr to assure that the role ofEOI conditions for which the design basis l Setpoints." TS 3/4.6.1 1. "Pritnary fjs efely to act as the managing agent for accident analyses have been performed Containment - Contsmment Integnty." l the plant, the staff will condition the are still valid. TS 3/4.6.1.2. "Contamment Systems - ; _ ,}}