ML20070E819
| ML20070E819 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Waterford  |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1991 |
| From: | Quay T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070E821 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103060292 | |
| Download: ML20070E819 (8) | |
Text
.
+
i 0
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N f
ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC 3 DOCKET NO. 50-382 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO F,ACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS
' CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR NEARING The U.S. Nucleer Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License No NPF-38, issued to EntergyOperations,Inc..(thelicensee),foroperationoftheWaterfordSteam-Electric Station located'in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
The amendment would revise tte Technical Specifications'to-delete the reference to " key-locked" open and olter the text of the surveillance to require that the Shutdown Cooling System suction isolation valves be checked open instead of. checked key-locked open.
b The proposed change to Section 4.a:8.3.1 of the Technical Specifications is required to ensure that surveillance re, irements accurately reflect the design characteristics of'the installed sht wn cooling system suction line isolation valves.
The licensee's application for amendment dated January' 24, 1991, requested issuance prior.to the scheduled shutdown associated with.-the
-March 15, 1991, refueling outage. Terformance of the stated requirements during shutdown would force the licensee to violate current Technical y
l-
' Specifications. -Cor equently, the staff has determined that exigent circumstences exist which justify reducing the public notice period normally provided for licensing amendments.
9103060292 910225 PDR ADOCK 05000382 P
.;=..--
-. ~
2 Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regula-tions.in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) crette the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed amendment does not involve.a significant increase in the probabili y or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
No credit is t
taken f or key-locked open Shutdown Cooling System isolation valves in. any accident previously evaluated. All assumptions and results for previously evaluated accidents remain unchanged by the proposed amendment. As a result, the modification to Technical. Specification 4.4.8.3.1 to enable the isolation
^
valves to be checked "open" ' ice " key-locked open" will not cause an increase -
e in the prnbability or consequence of any previously evaluated accident.
.The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or ditferent kino of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The amended
. surveillance requirement still prompts a valve lineup check once per 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
This check provides the necessary high degree p t.onficence in the ability of the' shutdown cooling system (SOCS) suction relof ydytrs to protect the reactor vessel from low temperature overpressure transienu.
Moreover, an amendment to the specification is clearly more dctirable than the alternative-that is, an equipment change to satisfy the requirement as it eem 4w g
~-
e.-.
~,
.-ws.
,,+---.-
r r-
-3 2-,r..w,,w~y, v
ww--., w -w-.wc.~..mnw-,w.--..,,,w.,--w
.ewwww,. w w. -.,.
w w-r -
D.
is r;rrently written. Mdifying control room equipment in order to provide the capability to key-lock open the suction line isolation valves would provide no measurable safety benefit. On the contrary, it woulo re.u s :t SOCS flexibility and impede timely operator response to a potential casualty.
Consequently, operation in accordance with the amended Technical Specifica-tion surveillance requirement will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
No credit is taken in any accident evaluation for the ability to lock open the SDCS suction line isolation valves.
From a safety standpoint, the propoced amendment is clearly more desirable than the specification as it is currently written. Operation with the valves "open" vice " key-locked open" provides an increased margin of safety by providing the operational flexibility needed for timely response to 5005 casualties and avoidance of potential loss of shutdown ccaling scenarios.
L The protection provievi by the amended specification is equivalent to that in the current specification.
Since this change does not affect any of the assumptions or results of the sa ety analyses, does not diminish the protectior.
f provided by any limiting condition for operation in the Technical Specifications, and does not affect any bases, it does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety.
Accordingly, the Commission pr) poses to determine that this change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any comments received within fif teen (15) days af ter the date of publication
..... _. _. ~... _. _ _ _ _ _. _. - _ _ _. _ _ _ _ - _ _. _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _.
,~
'4 of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a iinal determination unless it receives a request for a hearing._
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of-information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL rec 1 STER-notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4: 15 p.m.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gsiman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By March 14, 1991
, the licensee m6y file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
. license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who~ wishes to-participate as a party in the proceeding must-file a written request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
F,equests for a hearing and petitions for leave _to intervene shall be filed i: _accordance with the Commission's " Rules of Practice-for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interesteo persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is aveilable at the Connission's-Public Document Room, the L
Gelman Building, 2120 L-Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Local Public Document Room located at University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiana 70122.
If a request for a hearing or petition fcr leave ;o interv"na is filed by the above date,
!l'
~--
~
the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule en the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particnierity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be offected by the results of the proceeding.
The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1)thenature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financiol,-or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any-order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should a.lso identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.
Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) d6ys prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the' proceeding, but si,ch an amended petition-must satisfy the specificity requiren;ents ' described ab3ve.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference-scheduled in the-proceeding,
'etitioner shall' file a supplement to the petitior to intervene which must incluce a list of the contentions wh',ch are sought to be litigated in the matter.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of_the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted.
In l-o l
(
6-addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanatici of the bases of the contention and e concise statement of the alleged fact, or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner i,.o ads to reiy in proving the contention at the hearing.
The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to r91y to establish those facts or expert opinion.
Petitioner must provid; sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a,1.ateidal issue of law or fact.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration.
The contention aust be one etich, if proven, would entitle the petition 1r
,,3.ief.
A pe itioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permittea to participate as a party.
Those permitted to in;ervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to eny limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, If the amendment is issued before the expiration of 30-days, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of.10 significant hazards consiceration, if 6 heoring is requested, the final determination will serve to dc.10 / e-the hearing is held, if the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and ante it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing he'd would take place after issuance of the amendment.
l, A"~s-
~7~
if the final determination is that the amenotent request involves a significont hozords consideration, any hearing hele would take place before the issuonce of any amendment.
Normolly, the Commission will not issue the emendment until the expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that feilure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in dereting or shutdown of the facility, the Commission mey issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment inv41ves no significant hozards consideration, the final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance.
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or d petiticn for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Services Branch, or may be celiverec to the Commission's Public Document Root, the Gelaan Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the lest ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by o toll-free telephone call to Western Ur. ion at 1-(800) 325-6000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operdtor should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Theodore R. Quay:
petitioner's name and telephcne number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date end ca;e number of this FEDERAL PEGISTER notice. A copy of the petition 3hould al:o
p
.o be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissica, Washington, D.C. 20555, and to Ernest L. Blake, Esa., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2S00 N St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20037, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplementel petitions anc/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Consission, the presiding of ficer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d),
for further det611s with respect tc this action, see the application for emendrent dated January 24, 1991, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N,W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room, University of New Orleans Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, Louisiano 70122 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of February 1991.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, bmbw $
a.3 Theordore R. Quay, Director Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects 111, IV, and V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
.