11482 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices

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 January 24, 1997, as

supplemented February 13 and 27,

1997, which are 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 Plymouth Public Library,

132 South Street, Plymouth,

Massachusetts.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alan B. Wang,

Project Manager, Project Directorate I–3,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–6176 Filed 3–11– 97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[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 (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from certain requirements of its

regulations to 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 action would allow the

licensee to utilize American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler

and Pressure Vessel Code (Code) Case

N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature Overpressure

Protection’’ to determine its low

temperature overpressure protection

(LTOP) setpoints. By application dated

November 26, 1996, the licensee

requested an exemption from certain

requirements of 10 CFR 50.60,

‘‘Acceptance Criteria for Fracture

Prevention Measures for Lightwater

Nuclear Power Reactors for Normal

Operation.’’ The exemption would

allow application of an alternate

methodology to determine the LTOP

setpoints for ANO–1. The proposed

alternate methodology is consistent with

guidelines developed by the ASME

Working Group on Operating Plant

Criteria (WGOPC) 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. These

guidelines have been incorporated into

Code Case N–514, ‘‘Low Temperature

Overpressure Protection.’’ Code Case N–

514 has been approved by the ASME

Code Committee and incorporated into

Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME

Code and published in the 1993

Addenda to Section XI. However, 10

CFR 50.55a, ‘‘Codes and Standards,’’

and Regulatory Guide 1.147, ‘‘Inservice

Inspection Code Case Acceptability,’’

have not been updated to reflect the

acceptability of Code Case N–514.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60, all

lightwater nuclear power reactors must

meet the fracture toughness

requirements for the reactor coolant

pressure boundary as set forth in 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G. 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G, 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 10 CFR

Part 50, Appendix G, may be used when

an exemption is granted by the

Commission under 10 CFR 50.12.

To prevent transients that would

produce excursions exceeding the 10

CFR Part 50, Appendix G, P/T limits

while the reactor is operating at low

temperatures, the licensee installed the

LTOP system. The LTOP system

includes the electromatic relief valve

(ERV) that is set to the LTOP mode

when reactor pressure and temperature

are reduced. The ERV prevents the

pressure in the reactor vessel from

exceeding the P/T limits of 10 CFR Part

50, Appendix G. However, to prevent

ERV from lifting as a result of normal

operating pressure surges, some margin

is needed between the normal operating

pressure and the ERV setpoint.

To meet the 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G P/T limits, the ERV would

be set to open at a pressure very close

to the normal pressure inside the

reactor. With the ERV setpoint close to

the normal operating pressure, minor

pressure perturbations that typically

occur in the reactor could cause the ERV

to open periodically. This is undesirable

from the safety perspective because after

every ERV opening there is some

concern that the ERV may not reclose.

A stuck open ERV would continue to

discharge primary coolant and reduce

rector pressure until the discharge

pathway was closed by operator action.

Code Case N–514 would permit a

slightly higher pressure inside the

reactor during shutdown conditions.

The ability to maintain a higher

pressure in the reactor would allow a

higher ERV setpoint and the likelihood

for inadvertent opening of the ERV

would be reduced.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

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 one

quarter (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–1 reactor

vessel material.

Code Case N–514 guidelines are

intended to ensure that the LTOP limits

are still below the pressure/temperature

(P/T) limits for normal operation, but to

allow the pressure that may occur with

activation of pressure relieving devices

to exceed the P/T limits, provided

acceptable margins are maintained

during these events. This approach

protects the pressure vessel from LTOP

events, and maintains the Technical

Specifications P/T limits applicable for

normal heatup and cooldown in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix G and Sections III and XI of

the ASME Code.

In determining the ERV setpoint for

LTOP events, the licensee proposed the

use of safety margins based on an

alternate methodology consistent with

the proposed ASME Code Case N–514

guidelines. ASME Code Case N–514

allows determination of the setpoint for

LTOP events such that the maximum

pressure in the vessel will not exceed

110% 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, use of the proposed

criteria will provide adequate margins

of safety to the reactor vessel during

LTOP transients.

Use of Code Case N–514 safety

margins will reduce operational

challenges during low-pressure, lowtemperature operations. In terms of

overall safety, the safety benefits desired
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 48 / Wednesday, March 12, 1997 / Notices 11483

from simplified operations and the

reduced potential for undesirable

opening of ERV will more than offset

the reduction of the principal membrane

safety factor. Reduced operational

challenges will reduce the potential for

undesirable impacts to the environment.

The change will not increase the

probability or consequences of

accidents, no changes are being made in

the types of any effluents that may be

released offsite, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable

individual or cumulative occupational

radiation exposure. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no

significant radiological environmental

impacts associated with the proposed

action.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action involves features located entirely

within the restricted area as defined in

10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and has

no other environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant

nonradiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

there is no measurable environmental

impact associated with the proposed

action, any alternatives with equal or

greater environmental impact need not

be evaluated. As an alternative to the

proposed action, the staff considered

denial of the proposed action. Denial of

the application would result in no

change in current environmental

impacts. 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 resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for ANO–1.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on January 28, 1996, the staff consulted

with the Arkansas State official, Mr.

David Snellings, Director of the Division

of Radiation Control and Emergency

Management, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission 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 letter

dated November 26, 1996, which is

available for public inspection at the

Commission’s Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and at the local public document room

located at the Tomlinson Library,

Arkansas Tech University, Russellville,

AR 72801.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George Kalman,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

VI–1, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office

of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–6342 Filed 3–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations

Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from February 14,

1997, through February 28, 1997. The

last biweekly notice was published on

February 26, 1997.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Opeating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Harzards Consideration determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

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. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

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 before

action is taken. 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 a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By April 11, 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