[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29776]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 5, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-368]
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; 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.
NPF-6 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. for operation of Arkansas
Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) located in Pope County, Arkansas.
The proposed amendment would delete requirements to perform the
full complement of steam generator surveillances as outlined in the
Technical Specifications (TSs) when the steam generators are subjected
to special inspections that are in addition to inspections that are
required by the TSs.
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 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:
Criterion 1--Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
This change has no actual impact on any previously analyzed
accident in the final safety analysis report (FSAR). A double-ended
break of one steam generator tube is postulated as part of the ANO-2
design basis accident evaluation. The change permits Entergy Operations
to determine the appropriate scope and expansion criteria for special
steam generator tube inspections that are beyond the scope of the
augmented inservice inspection program included in the TSs. The
augmented inservice inspection program contained in the TSs is not
being modified.
General Design Criterion 14 of Appendix A of 10 CFR 50 states:
``The reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be * * * tested so as to
have an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, of rapidly
propagating failure, and of gross rupture.'' The proper scope and
expansion criteria for special steam generator tube inspections are
determined such that the requirement of the general design criterion
will be met. Additionally, special inspections utilize calculations of
minimum acceptable wall thickness per the guidance of Regulatory Guide
1.121, ``Basis for Plugging Degraded Steam Generator Tubes.''
This change does not modify any parameter that will increase
radioactivity in the primary system or increase the amount of
radioactive steam released from the secondary safety valves or
atmospheric dump valves in the event of a tube rupture.
The administrative corrections made to correct inconsistencies
introduced in previous TS amendments do not affect reactor operations
or accident analyses and have no radiological consequences.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
Criterion 2--Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different
Kind of Accident From Any Previously Evaluated.
The scope of this change does not establish a potential new
accident precursor. The design basis accident analyses for ANO-2
include the consequences of a double-ended break of one steam generator
tube which bounds other postulated failure mechanisms. The proposed
change would permit determination of alternate inspection criteria for
special inspections which are in addition to the inservice inspections
required by the TSs. The equipment used in special inspections would
not affect any plant components differently than those used for TS
required inspections.
The corrections made to remove inconsistencies introduced in
previous TS amendments are administrative and do not change the design,
configuration, or method of operation of the plant.
Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
Criterion 3--Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin
of Safety.
As previously stated, a double-ended rupture of one steam generator
tube is accounted for in the ANO-2 design basis accident analysis.
Safety margins to detect and repair tube defects prior to rupture are
reflected by the 0.5 GPM primary to secondary leakage limit stated in
the ANO-2 TSs and the minimum acceptable wall thickness criteria
included in Regulatory Guide 1.121. As stated in the ANO-2 TS Bases,
cracks having a primary to secondary leakage less than the 0.5 GPM
limit during operation will have an adequate margin of safety to
withstand the loads imposed during normal operation and by postulated
accidents. Considering that special inspections are in addition to the
inservice inspection program defined in the ANO-2 TSs, that the scope
of special inspections are determined taking into consideration General
Design Criteria 14, and that leakage detection capability is not being
modified, the exemption of special inspections from the requirements of
the augmented inservice inspection program does not significantly
reduce the margin of safety.
The other administrative changes do not reduce TS operability and
surveillance requirements, and, therefore, do not reduce any margin of
safety.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in
the 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 30 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 30-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 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 in the Federal
Register a 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.
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, 11545 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 January 4, 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 Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech
University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801. 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
following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the
Act to be made 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 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 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 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 Mr. 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 Mr.
Nicholas S. Reynolds, 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 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 November 29, 1994, which is 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 Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech
University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
George Kalman,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor
Projects-III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-29776 Filed 12-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
