[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64173-64175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30712]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 change the Small-Break Loss-of-Coolant 
Accident (SBLOCA) evaluation code CENPD-137, Supplement 1-P, as the 
preferred evaluation method. This methodology has been applied with a 
steam generator tube plugging limit of 30% and an associated 10% 
reduction in Reactor Coolant System (RCS) flow.
    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:


[[Page 64174]]


    Criterion 1--Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the 
Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
    The proposed change to reference CENPD-137, Supplement 1-P is 
administrative in nature. The current referenced SBLOCA methodology 
is being supplemented with a more recently approved methodology 
which has demonstrated acceptable results with respect to 10 CFR 
50.46 for the ANO-2 SBLOCA analysis. CENPD-137, Supplement 1-P has 
been independently reviewed and approved by the NRC. Technical 
specifications will continue to require operation within the core 
operational limits for each cycle reload calculated by the approved 
reload design methodologies. Cycle-specific evaluations performed in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 demonstrate that changes in fuel cycle 
design do not involve an unreviewed safety question. Although there 
is an increase in the results (PCT, maximum cladding oxidation, and 
core-wide cladding oxidation) of the SBLOCA analysis, the increase 
is primarily due to the methodology change. The more recently 
approved methodology allows steam generator tube plugging up to 30% 
for SBLOCA analysis, but the increase in the results due to steam 
generator tube plugging is very small when compared to the increase 
due to the methodology change. The safety analyses will continue to 
be performed utilizing NRC-approved methodologies, and specific 
reload changes will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59.
    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 proposed change to reference the current NRC-approved SBLOCA 
methodology is administrative in nature. The more recently approved 
methodology has demonstrated acceptable results for ANO-2. No 
changes to plant operating procedures or operating parameters are 
proposed. The safety analyses will continue to be performed 
utilizing NRC-approved methodologies, and specific reload changes 
will be evaluated per 10 CFR 50.59. No new equipment is being 
introduced, and no equipment is being operated in a manner 
inconsistent with its design.
    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.
    The proposed change to reference the NRC-approved CENPD-137, 
Supplement 1-P SBLOCA methodology is administrative in nature. The 
margin of safety as defined by 10 CFR 50.46 has not been 
significantly reduced. There is an increase in the results (PCT, 
maximum cladding oxidation, and core-wide cladding oxidation) of the 
SBLOCA analysis utilizing this methodology; however, the increase is 
primarily due to the methodology change and remains within the 
limits specified in 10 CFR 50.46. The more recently approved 
methodology allows steam generator tube plugging up to 30% for 
SBLOCA analysis, but the increase in the results due to steam 
generator tube plugging is very small when compared to the increase 
due to the methodology change.
    The development of limits for a particular cycle will continue 
to conform to the methods described in NRC-approved documentation. 
Technical specifications will continue to require that the core be 
operated within these limits and specify appropriate actions to be 
taken if the limits are violated. Each reload undergoes a 10 CFR 
50.59 safety review to assure that operation of the unit within the 
cycle-specific limits will not involve an unreviewed safety 
question. The safety analyses will continue to be performed 
utilizing NRC-approved methodologies.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Therefore, based upon the reasoning presented above and the 
previous discussion of the amendment request, Entergy Operations has 
determined that the requested change does not involve a significant 
hazards consideration.

    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 Chief, Rules 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 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 2, 1997, 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.

[[Page 64175]]

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 20555-0001, 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, Director, Project 
Directorate IV-1: 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 20555-0001, 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 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 November 24, 1996, 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 26th day of November 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kombiz Salehi,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-30712 Filed 12-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P