[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