[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