4818 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices

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.

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 S. Singh

Bajwa, Acting Director, Project

Directorate I–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 Jay Silberg,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street NW., Washington, DC

20037, 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).

If a request for a hearing is received,

the Commission’s staff may issue the

amendment after it completes its

technical review and prior to the

completion of any required hearing if it

publishes a further notice for public

comment of its proposed finding of no

significant hazards consideration in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and

50.92.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendments dated December 4, 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 Calvert County Library, Prince

Frederick, Maryland 20678.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John A. Zwolinski,

Deputy Director, Division of Reactor

Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2380 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket No. 50–368]

Entergy Operations, Inc., (Arkansas

Nuclear One, Unit 2); Exemption

I

Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee)

is the holder of Facility Operating

License No. NPF–6, which authorizes

operation of Arkansas Nuclear One,

Unit 2. The license provides, among

other things, that the licensee is subject

to all rules, regulations, and orders of

the Commission now or hereafter in

effect.

The facility consists of two

pressurized water reactors, Arkansas

Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, located at

the licensee’s site in Pope County,

Arkansas.

II

In its letter dated April 11, 1996, the

licensee requested an exemption from

the Commission’s regulations for

Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. Title 10

of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part

50, Section 60 (10 CFR 50.60),

‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Fracture

Prevention Measures for Lightwater

Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal

Operation,’’ states that all lightwater

nuclear power reactors must meet the

fracture toughness and material

surveillance program requirements for

the reactor coolant pressure boundary as

set forth in Appendices G and H to 10

CFR Part 50. Appendix G to 10 CFR Part

50 defines pressure/temperature (P/T)

limits during any condition of normal

operation, including anticipated

operational occurrences and system

hydrostatic tests to which the pressure

boundary may be subjected over its

service lifetime. It is specified in 10 CFR

50.60(b) that alternatives to the

described requirements in Appendices

G and H to 10 CFR Part 50 may be used

when an exemption is granted by the

Commission under 10 CFR 50.12.

To prevent low temperature

overpressure transients that would

produce pressure excursions exceeding

the Appendix G P/T limits while the

reactor is operating at low temperatures,

the licensee installed a low temperature

overpressure protection (LTOP) system.

The system includes two relief valves to

limit high system pressure. The relief

valves are set at a pressure low enough

so that if an LTOP transient occurred,

the mitigation system would prevent the

pressure in the reactor vessel from

exceeding the Appendix G P/T limits.

To prevent the relief valves from lifting

as a result of normal operating pressure

surges (e.g., reactor coolant pump

starting, and shifting operating charging

pumps) with the reactor coolant system

in a solid water condition, the operating

pressure must be maintained below the

relief valve setpoint. However, the

reactor coolant system pressure/

temperature operating window at low

temperatures is defined by the LTOP

setpoint. Implementation of a LTOP

setpoint without the additional margin

allowed by American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 21 / Friday, January 31, 1997 / Notices 4819

Case N–514 would restrict the pressure/

temperature operating window and

would potentially result in undesired

actuation of the LTOP system. This

constitutes an unnecessary burden that

can be alleviated by the application of

ASME Code Case N–514.

Implementation of an LTOP setpoint as

allowed by ASME Code Case N–514

does not significantly reduce the margin

of safety associated with normal

operational heatup and cooldown

limits. Further, the LTOP guidelines

will reduce the potential for an

undesired lift of the LTOP valves.

The licensee has requested the use of

the American Society of Mechanical

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure

Vessel Code (Code) Case N–514, ‘‘Low

Temperature Overpressure Protection,’’

which allows exceeding the Appendix G

safety limits by 10 percent. ASME Code

Case N–514, the proposed alternate

methodology, is consistent with

guidelines developed by the ASME

Working Group on Operating Plant

Criteria to define pressure limits during

LTOP events that avoid certain

unnecessary operational restrictions,

provide adequate margins against failure

of the reactor pressure vessel, and

reduce the potential for unnecessary

activation of pressure-relieving devices

used for LTOP. Code Case N–514 has

been approved by the ASME Code

Committee. The content of this code

case has been incorporated into

Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME

Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI.

III

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the

Commission may, upon application by

any interested person or upon its own

initiative, grant exemptions from the

requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1)

the exemptions are authorized by law,

will not present an undue risk to public

health or safety, and are consistent with

the common defense and security; and

(2) when special circumstances are

present. Special circumstances are

present whenever, according to 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii), ‘‘Application of the

regulation in the particular

circumstances would not serve the

underlying purpose of the rule or is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule * * *.’’

The underlying purpose of 10 CFR

50.60, Appendix G, is to establish

fracture toughness requirements for

ferritic materials of pressure-retaining

components of the reactor coolant

pressure boundary to provide adequate

margins of safety during any condition

of normal operation, including

anticipated operational occurrences, to

which the pressure boundary may be

subjected over its service lifetime.

Section IV.A.2 of this appendix requires

that the reactor vessel be operated with

P/T limits at least as conservative as

those obtained by following the

methods of analysis and the required

margins of safety of Appendix G of the

ASME Code.

Appendix G of the ASME Code

requires that the P/T limits be

calculated: (a) using a safety factor of

two on the principal membrane

(pressure) stresses, (b) assuming a flaw

at the surface with a depth of onequarter (1⁄4) of the vessel wall thickness

and a length of six (6) times its depth,

and (c) using a conservative fracture

toughness curve that is based on the

lower bound of static, dynamic, and

crack arrest fracture toughness tests on

material similar to the ANO–2 reactor

vessel material.

In determining the setpoint for LTOP

events, the licensee proposed to use

safety margins based on an alternate

methodology consistent with the ASME

Code Case N–514 guidelines. The ASME

Code Case N–514 allows determination

of the setpoint for LTOP events such

that the maximum pressure in the vessel

would not exceed 110 percent of the P/

T limits of the existing ASME Appendix

G. This results in a safety factor of 1.8

on the principal membrane stresses. All

other factors, including assumed flaw

size and fracture toughness, remain the

same. Although this methodology

would reduce the safety factor on the

principal membrane stresses, the

proposed criteria will provide adequate

margins of safety to the reactor vessel

during LTOP transients and, thus, will

satisfy the underlying purpose of 10

CFR 50.60 for fracture toughness

requirements. The slight reduction in

the membrane stress safety factor, as

proposed by Code Case N–514, is

compensated by increased safety from

the standpoint of increased operational

flexibility and the reduced potential for

unnecessary opening of the LTOP relief

valves. In summary, the use of Code

Case N–514 is likely to improve overall

safety when evaluated as part of the

complete plant safety concern.

IV

For the foregoing reasons, the NRC

staff has concluded that the licensee’s

proposed use of the alternate

methodology in determining the

acceptable setpoint for LTOP events will

not present an undue risk to public

health and safety and is consistent with

the common defense and security. The

NRC staff has determined that there are

special circumstances present, as

specified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), in that

application of 10 CFR 50.60 is not

necessary in order to achieve the

underlying purpose of this regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12(a), an exemption is authorized by

law, will not endanger life or property

or common defense and security, and is,

otherwise, in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby

grants an exemption from the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60 allowing

the use of alternate criteria as described

by Code Case N–514, which permits

exceeding the Appendix G safety factor

by 10 percent during low temperature

operations.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that the

granting of this exemption will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment (61 FR 20846).

This exemption is effective upon

issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day

of January 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Frank J. Miraglia,

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–2377 Filed 1–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 50–245, 50–336, 50–423 and

50–213]

Northeast Utilities, Millstone Nuclear

Power Station, Units 1, 2, and 3,

Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power

Company, Haddam Neck Plant; Receipt

of Petition for Director’s Decision

Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that on

November 25, 1996, as amended on

December 23, 1996, the Citizens

Awareness Network (CAN) and the

Nuclear Information and Resource

Service (NIRS) (Petitioners) submitted a

Petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206

requesting certain actions associated

with the Haddam Neck plant, which the

Petitioners refer to as Connecticut

Yankee, and the three Millstone units

operated by Northeast Utilities (NU).

Petitioners allege that NU has, over

the past decade, mismanaged its nuclear

facilities in Connecticut and operated

them in flagrant disregard of NRC

regulations; that NU has failed to fulfill

its commitments to the NRC; that NU

management had concrete

particularized knowledge of serious ongoing violations of NRC regulations

culminating in material

misrepresentations to the NRC; that

regulatory oversight by the NRC to

assure NU’s compliance with NRC