[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46038-46040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22027]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-313]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the 
issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-
51, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1, (ANO-1) located in Pope County, Arkansas.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed amendment would revise the existing, or current, 
Technical Specifications (CTS) for ANO-1 in their entirety, based on 
the guidance provided in NUREG-1430, ``Standard Technical 
Specifications, Babcock and Wilcox Plants,'' and in the NRC's 
regulations, including 10 CFR 50.36, ``Technical specifications.''
    The proposed amendment is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated January 28, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated 
August 9 and September 28, 2000, and February 6, March 19, May 1, and 
August 23, 2001.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    It has been recognized that nuclear safety in all nuclear power 
plants would benefit from an improvement and standardization of plant 
Technical Specifications (TS). The `` Interim Policy Statement on 
Technical Specification Improvements for Nuclear Power Plants,'' (52 FR 
3788) contained proposed criteria for defining the scope of TS. Later, 
the NRC's ``Final Policy Statement on Technical Specifications 
Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' published on July 22, 1993 
(58 FR 39132), incorporated lessons learned since publication of the 
interim policy statement and formed the basis for revisions to 10 CFR 
50.36. In 1995, the NRC published a Final Rule amending 10 CFR 50.36 
(60 FR 36953) in which the NRC codified criteria for determining the 
content of TS. To facilitate the development of standard TS for nuclear 
power reactors, each power reactor vendor owners' group (OG) and the 
NRC staff developed standard TS. For ANO-1, the Improved Standard 
Technical Specifications (ISTS) are in NUREG-1430. This document forms 
part of the basis for the proposed ANO-1 Improved Technical 
Specifications (ITS) conversion.

Description of the Proposed Change

    The proposed changes to the CTS are based on NUREG-1430 and on 
guidance provided by the NRC in its Final Policy Statement and 
subsequent revision to 10 CFR 50.36. The objective of the changes is to 
completely rewrite, reformat, and streamline the CTS (i.e., to convert 
the CTS to the ITS). Emphasis is placed on human factors principles to 
improve clarity and understanding of the TS. The Bases section of the 
ITS has been significantly expanded to clarify and better explain the 
purpose and foundation of each specification. In addition to NUREG-
1430, portions of the CTS were also used as the basis for the 
development of the ANO-1 ITS.
    The licensee has categorized the proposed changes to the CTS into 
four general groupings. These groupings are characterized as 
administrative changes, relocation changes, more restrictive changes, 
and less restrictive changes.
    Administrative changes are those that involve restructuring, 
renumbering, rewording, interpretation, and complex rearranging of 
requirements and other changes not affecting technical content or 
substantially revising an operating requirement. The reformatting, 
renumbering, and rewording process reflects the attributes of NUREG-
1430 and does not involve technical changes to the existing TS. The 
proposed changes include: (a) providing the appropriate numbers, etc., 
for NUREG-1430 bracketed information (information that must be supplied 
on a plant-specific basis, and which may change from plant to plant); 
(b) identifying plant-specific wording for system names, etc.; and (c) 
changing NUREG-1430 section wording to conform to existing licensee 
practices. Such changes are administrative in nature and do not impact 
initiators of analyzed events or assumed mitigation of accident or 
transient events.
    Relocation changes are those involving relocation of requirements 
and surveillances for structures, systems, components, or variables 
that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in TS. Current TS 
requirements that do not satisfy or fall within any of the four 
criteria specified in the NRC's policy statement may be relocated to 
appropriate licensee-controlled documents. The requirements and 
surveillances for these affected structures, systems, components, or 
variables would be relocated from the TS to administratively controlled 
documents such as the quality assurance program, the Final Safety

[[Page 46039]]

Analysis Report, the ITS BASES, the Technical Requirements Manual, the 
Core Operating Limits Report (COLR), the Offsite Dose Calculation 
Manual (ODCM), the Inservice Testing Program, or other licensee-
controlled documents. Changes made to these documents would be made 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59, ``Changes, tests, and experiments,'' or other 
appropriate control mechanisms, and may, within the prescribed limits, 
be made without prior NRC review and approval. In addition, the 
affected structures, systems, components, or variables are often 
addressed in existing surveillance procedures that are also subject to 
10 CFR 50.59. These proposed changes to the TS will not, in and of 
themselves, impose any requirements.
    More restrictive changes are those involving more stringent 
requirements compared to the CTS for operation of the facility. These 
more stringent requirements do not result in operation that will alter 
assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient 
event. The more restrictive requirements will not alter the operation 
of process variables, structures, systems, or components described in 
the safety analyses. For each requirement in the CTS that is more 
restrictive than the corresponding requirement in NUREG-1430 that the 
licensee proposes to retain in the ITS, they have provided an 
explanation of why they have concluded that retaining the more 
restrictive requirement is desirable to ensure safe operation of the 
facility because of specific design features of the plant.
    Less restrictive changes are those where CTS requirements are 
relaxed or eliminated, or new plant operational flexibility is 
provided. The more significant ``less restrictive'' requirements are 
justified on a case-by-case basis. When requirements have been shown to 
provide little or no safety benefit, their removal from the TS may be 
appropriate. In most cases, relaxations previously granted to 
individual plants on a plant-specific basis were the result of (a) 
generic NRC actions, (b) new NRC staff positions that have evolved from 
technological advancements and operating experience, or (c) resolution 
of the OGs' comments on the ISTS. The licensee's design will be 
reviewed to determine if the specific design basis and licensing basis 
are consistent with the technical basis for the model requirements in 
NUREG-1430, thus providing a basis for these revised TS, or, if 
relaxation of the requirements in the CTS is warranted, based on the 
justification provided by the licensee.
    These administrative, relocation, more restrictive, and less 
restrictive changes to the requirements of the CTS do not result in 
operations that will alter assumptions relative to mitigation of an 
analyzed accident or transient event.
    In addition to the proposed changes solely involving the 
conversion, there are also changes proposed that are different from the 
requirements in both the CTS and the ISTS (NUREG-1430). These proposed 
beyond-scope issues to the ITS conversion are as follows:
    1. ITS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.2.3, ``Axial Power 
Imbalance Operating Limits''--Completion time for power reduction if 
axial power imbalance not restored to within limits changed to 4 hours 
from value in NUREG-1430 (2 hours).
    2. ITS LCO 3.2.4, ``Quadrant Power Tilt (QPT)''--Revised the 
completion time for several actions for circumstances where QPT exceeds 
limits specified in the COLR.
    3. ITS LCO 3.4.8, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Loops, MODE 5, 
Loops Not Filled''--Added a required action to suspend operations 
involving reduction in RCS water volume if required decay heat removal 
(DHR) loops were not operable or required DHR loop not in operation.
    4. ITS LCO 3.4.11, ``Low Temperature Overpressure Protection (LTOP) 
System''--Adopted some of the NUREG-1430 required actions and 
surveillance requirements which are more restrictive than CTS but did 
not adopt all NUREG-1430 requirements.
    5. ITS LCO 3.5.2, ``ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System]--
Operating''--Added a shutdown requirement for a condition where less 
than 100 percent of the ECCS flow equivalent to a single operable train 
is available.
    6. ITS LCO 3.7.1, ``Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs)''--Reformatted 
to replace figure in NUREG-1430 with a table providing limitations for 
operation with more than one inoperable MSSV per steam generator.
    7. ITS LCO 3.4.13, ``RCS Operational LEAKAGE''--Modified 
surveillance requirement to specify that the surveillance is not 
required until after the plant is at or near operating pressure.
    8. ITS Administrative Controls 5.5.1, ``Offsite Dose Calculation 
Manual (ODCM)''--Reference reports by name only instead of NUREG-1430 
convention of including report name and associated TS.
    9. ITS Administrative Controls 5.2.2, ``Unit Staff''--Reference to 
specific operator staffing requirements is replaced with a reference to 
the applicable regulation.
    10. ITS LCO 3.6.3, ``Reactor Building Isolation Valves''--
Surveillance requirement in NUREG -1430 not adopted for reactor 
building purge valves since ANO-1 does not have resilient seated 
valves.
    11. ITS LCO 3.6.4, ``Reactor Building Pressure''--Lower limit on 
reactor building pressure increased to a more restrictive value to be 
consistent with ECCS analyses and Bases statements in NUREG-1430.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed conversion of 
the CTS to the ITS for ANO-1, including the beyond-scope issues 
discussed above. Changes which are administrative in nature have no 
effect on the technical content of the TS. The increased clarity and 
understanding these changes bring to the TS are expected to improve the 
operators control of ANO-1 in normal and accident conditions.
    Relocation of requirements from the CTS to other licensee-
controlled documents does not change the substance of these provisions 
requirements themselves. Future changes to these provisions may then be 
made by the licensee under 10 CFR 50.59 and other NRC-approved control 
mechanisms which will ensure continued adequate control of their 
substance. All such relocations would be consistent with the guidelines 
of NUREG-1430 and 10 CFR 50.36.
    Changes involving more restrictive requirements enhance plant 
safety.
    Changes involving less restrictive requirements have been reviewed 
individually. When requirements have been shown to provide little or no 
safety benefit, or to place an unnecessary burden on the licensee, 
their removal from the TS is justified. In most cases, relaxations 
previously granted to individual plants on a plant-specific basis were 
the result of a generic action, or of agreements reached during 
discussions with the OG, and found to be acceptable for the plant. 
Generic relaxations contained in NUREG-1430 have been reviewed by the 
NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
    The proposed amendment will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in 
the types of effluents that may be released off site, and there is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. The 
changes will not create any new or unreviewed environmental impacts 
that were not considered in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) 
related to the operation of ANO-1,

[[Page 46040]]

dated February 9, 1973, and the Generic Environmental Impact Statement 
for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding the Arkansas Nuclear 
One, Unit 1 (NUREG 1437-Supplement 3) published in April 2001. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed amendment.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
amendment does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It 
involves features located entirely within the restricted area for the 
plant defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological 
plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. It does not 
increase any discharge limit for the plant. Therefore, there are no 
significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed amendment.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the licensee's application would result in no change in 
current environmental impacts of ANO-1 operations, but it would prevent 
the safety benefits to the plant from the conversion to the ITS. The 
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action 
are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any different resources 
that those previously considered in the FES or Supplement 3 to NUREG-
1437 for ANO-1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on July 31, 2001, the staff 
consulted with the Arkansas State official, B. Bevill of the Arkansas 
Department of Health, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed amendment. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the 
proposed amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's application dated January 28, 2000, as supplemented by 
letters dated August 9 and September 28, 2000, and February 6, March 
19, May 1, and August 23, 2001. Documents may be examined, and/or 
copied for a fee, at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to 
ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of August, 2001.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of August 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert A. Gramm,
Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-22027 Filed 8-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P