ML20235S031
| ML20235S031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1987 |
| From: | Paulson W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235S034 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710080283 | |
| Download: ML20235S031 (8) | |
Text
--. _ _ _ _. _ _
~<
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY DOCKET N0. 50-458 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED N0 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-47 issued to Gulf States Utilities Company, for operation of the River Bend Station, Unit 1, located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana.
The proposed amendment would revise license condition 2.C(1), Attachment 1, Item 4.b.
This license condition requires that the licensee verify that adequate radio communication capability exists from all appropriate plant f
areas prior to startup following the first refueling outage.
The revision would replace this license condition with new license conditions Items 5.,
6.,
and 7., of Attachment 1.
Proposed Item 5. would require that the installation of equipment improvements to the security radio communications system be accomplished by May 31, 1988.
Proposed Item 6. would require that testing be conducted to determine if adequate radio communications capability exists from appropriate plant areas and this testing would be accomplished prior to startup following a subsequent outage with a planned duration of seven days or longer following May 31, 1988.
Proposed Item 7. would require that any further modifications or testing which may be determined to be necessary as G710080283 870924 PDR ADOCK 05000450 P
PDR j
4 the result of acceptance testing, be performed during a subsequent outage of suf ficient duration but prior to start-up following the second refueling outage in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated September 8, 1987.
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 Under the Comm'ission's request involves no significant hazards consideration.
regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant
]
reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee provided an analysis that The staff addressed the above three standards in the amendment application.
modified items 1. and 3., below, to delete safeguards information.
No significant increase in the probability or the consequences of an 1.
accident previously evaluated results from this change because:
The River Bend Station (RBS) communication system is designed to provide reliable intraplant and interplant (plant-to-of fsite) communi-An cation under both normal plant operation and accident operations.
independent and redundant communication system exists for cummunica-tions between the Central Alarm Station (CAS) and Secondary Alarm Station (SAS), operators, security of ficers, watch of ficers, and armed response personnel through the use of several dif ferent types The SER related to the operation of River Bend Station of systems.
(NUREG-0939) has reviewed the RBS communi. cation system in Section 9.5.2 and determined that the communication system is designed to provide a reliable intraplant and interplant (or plant-to-of fsite) communications under both normal plant operations and accident L---__-__
. conditions, to start-up, continue safe operation, or safely shut down.
The two-way radio communications systerrs is not an initiator of any accident in FSAR Chapters 6 and 15.
No Limiting Conditions for Operation are identified in the Technical Specifications for security communications.
In addition, this change does not revise any safety analyses as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
2, This change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated because:
River Bend Station relies on an established onsite physical protection system and a dedicated, well trained security force to implement an accepted program with capabilities for the protection of design basis threats to the plant.
No changes are proposed to these other measures of protection, (i.e., Physical Barriers, Access Control, Detection Capabilities and Response Force).
Therefore, there is no anticipated decrease in levels of overall program effectiveness.
Radiological sabotage, attach threats and other miscellaneous event potentials are based on postulated considerations.
This change has no significant effect on such contingencies.
This provides additional assurance prior to installation and system testing that the system does not initiate any new or different kinds of accident from any previously evaluated.
This change would not involve a significant reduction in the margin 3.
of safety because:
No plant system, as it relates to plant operations and other security As identified systems, will be altered as a result of this change.
in NUREG-0908, " Acceptance Criteria for the Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Security Plans," for those cases where areas have been identified where use of portable radios could interfere with plant monitoring equipment, etc., an alternate means of communication exists with the -CAS and SAS via several other alternate systems.
These alternate means of communications will continue to be available during the extended period.
In addition, the CAS and SAS will continue to have the capability with alternate communication systems to provide fully independent and redundant communication with local law enforcement and the plant control room (s).
This adheres to NUREG-0416, " Security Plan Evalua-tion Report Workbook." Security force control and coordination links are separate and distinct from all other internal administrative operations, logistics, telemetry, and process control communication systems in the facility.
This system will improve the existing radio communications throughout RBS. The proposed change does not reduce the margin of safety defined in the current Technical Specification Bases for security Therefore, this proposed change does not significantly communications.
decrease the margin of safety.
L ; L_
.+
- 4.-
This-change is not considered, as stated above, to increase.the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident ~due to the' requested extended period for installation and testing of the system. The security force will continue to function' as. it has.
Therefore, this-
~during the first cycle with the current system.
request does;not create the possibility of a.new or different type of accident.
The system, once completed, will improve the existing radio communications.
Therefore, continuing operation with the current system will' not involve a significant reduction. in the margin of safety.
The.staf f has reviewed. the licensee's no significant hazards consideration:
determination and' agrees with the analysis.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
1 Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will-be considered in making any final determination.
The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for
- a hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear i
Regulatory Commission, Wa:hington, D.C.
20555, and should cite.the publication Written comments may also date and page number of the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
- be delivered to Room 4000, Maryland National Bank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By October 30, 1987
, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating l
license and any person whose interest may be af fected by this proceeding and i
who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written l
\\
y,,....
'S
-.4
-5'-
l I
. petition for. leave to intervene.
Request for a hearing and petitions for'
. leave.to intervene shall be filed-in accordance with the Commission's." Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CfR Part 2.
If'a request' for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above
-l
'date, the Commission:or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of~the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
Panel, will. rule on.the request and/or petition and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or 1
l an. appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 62.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the: interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results 'of the proceeding.
The I
i petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the_ petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party l
may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fif teen l
(15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
i
. Not later than fif teen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supolen.ent to the l
petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are I
sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.
Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration.
A petitioner who fails
{
to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to l
J at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to I
any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the i
opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no i
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result
. in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
The final determination will consider all public and State comments received.
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish a 1
notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance.
The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1
Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Att:
Docketing and Service Branch, or
/
may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW t
Washington, D.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner l
promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western l
Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Jose A. Calvo, Director, Project Directorate - IV, 1
Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects:
petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication j
date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U. S. Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and to Troy B. Conner, Jr.,
D q., Conner and Wetterhahn, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
I 20006, attorney for the licensee.
i l
I
8-Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and l
2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for I
amendment dated September 8,1987, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
l 20555, and at the Government Documents Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Route, Louisiana 70803.
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 24th day of September,1987.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ k. g(,td Walter A. Paulson, Project Manager Project Directorate - IV Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, V and Special Projects
_.