Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices 18431

[Docket No. 50–382]

Entergy Operations Inc.; Notice of

Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment to Facility Operating

License, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity For a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an amendment

to Facility Operating License No. NFP–

38, issued to Entergy Operations Inc.

(the licensee), for operation of the

Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit

3, located in St. Charles Parish,

Louisiana.

The proposed amendment would

remove a footnote tied to MODE 1 of

Technical Specification (TS) Limiting

Condition for Operation 3.1.1.3,

moderator temperature coefficient

(MTC). The deleted footnote was only

valid for Cycle 2 and its removal is

purely administrative. A new footnote is

added to surveillance 4.1.1.3.2.c that

proposes a one time deviation not to

perform the specified two-thirds end-ofcycle (EOC) MTC test for Cycle 7. TS

3.1.1.3 requires that the most negative

MTC value for this cycle to be less

negative than the Core Operating Limits

Report (COLR) specified a value of

¥3.3×10¥4 delta k/k°F. Waterford 3 has

determined that the most negative MTC

value for the current cycle is

¥2.88×10¥4 delta k/k°F. The MTC for

Waterford 3 Cycle 7 has been

determined to be well within the TS

limit including applicable uncertainties.

Before issuance of the proposed

license amendment, the Commission

will have made findings required by the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended

(the Act) and the Commission’s

regulations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for

amendments to be granted under

exigent circumstances, the NRC staff

must determine that the amendment

request involves no significant hazards

consideration. Under the Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means

that operation of the facility in

accordance with the proposed

amendment would not (1) involve a

significant increase in the probability or

consequences of an accident previously

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of

a new or different kind of accident from

any accident previously evaluated; or

(3) involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its

analysis of the issue of no significant

hazards consideration, which is

presented below:

Waterford 3 is currently analyzed for a

EOC limiting value of ¥3.3×10¥4 delta k/k/

°F. Under the proposed change, compliance

with this TS Limit is assured by supporting

data and analysis. The analysis demonstrates

that the predicted EOC 7 best estimate MTC

value is ¥2.88×10¥4 delta k/k/°F. This is a

conservative value because it includes a 26

EFPD extension beyond the actual end of full

power reactivity. The margin to the TS limit

is thus 0.42×10¥4 delta k/k°F.

The probability and consequences of an

accident previously evaluated will not be

increased because this change does not

modify any assumptions used in the input to

the safety analyses. The current safety

calculations will remain valid because the

allowed range of MTC values will not

change. Therefore, the proposed change will

not involve any increase in the probability or

consequences of any accident previously

evaluated.

Plant operation and plant parameter TS

limits will remain unchanged. There are no

new changes in plant design nor are any new

failure modes introduced. Therefore, the

proposed change will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

Margin of safety will not be reduced

because the range of allowed temperature

coefficients will not be changed. The

surveillance program consisting of beginningof-cycle measurements was not affected.

Explicit End-of-Cycle 7 MTC predictions

have ensured that the MTC is and will

remain within the range of specified values.

Therefore, the proposed change will not

involve any reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff has reviewed the

licensee’s analysis and, based on this

review, it appears that the three

standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are

satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff

proposes to determine that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 15 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 15-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period, such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

15-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received. Should

the Commission take this action, it will

publish in the Federal Register a notice

of issuance. The Commission expects

that the need to take this action will

occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice. Written

comments may also be delivered to

Room 6D22, Two White Flint North,

11455 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.

Federal workdays. Copies of written

comments received may be examined at

the NRC Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

The filing of requests for hearing and

petitions for leave to intervene is

discussed below.

By May 11, 1995, the licensee may file

a request for a hearing with respect to

issuance of the amendment to the

subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the

University of New Orleans Library,

Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New

Orleans, LA 70122. If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above 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

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

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, 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 petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the
18432 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 1995 / Notices

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 may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which 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 addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

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 Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to William

D. Beckner: petitioner’s name and

telephone number, date petition was

mailed, plant name, and publication

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. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to N. S. Reynolds, Esq.,

Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW.,

Washington DC 20005–3502, attorney

for the licensee.

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 the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 4, 1995, as

supplemented by letter dated April 5,

1995, which are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room,

located at the University of New Orleans

Library, Louisiana Collection, Lakefront,

New Orleans, LA 70122.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of April 1995.

Chandu P. Patel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–8846 Filed 4–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–483]

Union Electric Company (Callaway

Plant, Unit 1)

Exemption

I.

Union Electric Company (UE or the

licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License No. NPF–30, which

authorizes operation of Callaway Plant,

Unit 1 (the facility), at a rated power

level not in excess of 3565 megawatts

thermal. The facility is a pressurized

water reactor located at the licensee’s

site in Callaway County, Missouri. The

license provides among other things,

that it is subject to all rules, regulations,

and Orders of the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (the

Commission or NRC) now or hereafter

in effect.

II.

Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 requires the performance of

three Type A containment integrated

leakage rate tests (CILRTs), at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period. The third

test of each set shall be conducted when

the plant is shutdown for the 10-year

plant inservice inspection.

III.

By letters dated December 9, 1994,

and January 27, 1995, UE requested

relief from the requirement to perform a

set of three Type A tests at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period. The

requested exemption would permit an

interval extension for the third Type A

test of approximately 18 months (from

the currently scheduled outage, March

1995, until the next planned refueling

outage, September 1996). The

exemption request would also permit

the third Type A test of the first 10-year

service period not to correspond with

the end of the current American Society

of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) 10-

year plant inservice inspection interval.

The licensee’s request cites the

special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12,