ML20077C647
| ML20077C647 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1994 |
| From: | Kalman G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20077C651 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9412060085 | |
| Download: ML20077C647 (9) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _
l 7590-01 l
[
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 NvTICE OF CONSIDERATION Pe ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETEP'9ATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an an, 'dment to f acility 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 delete requirements to perform the full complement of steam generator surveillances as outlined in the Technical Specifications (TSs) when the steam generators are subjected to special inspections that are in addition to inspections that are required by the TSs.
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 4
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 P.
I 9412060085 941129 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
PDR t
j 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:
I Criterion 1 - Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
1 1
This change has no actual impact on any previously analyzed accident in the final safety analysis report (FSAR). A double-endeo break of one steam generator tube is postulated as part of the ANO-2 design basis accident evaluation.
The change permits Entergy Operations to determine the appropriate scope and expansion criteria for special
'1 steam generator tube inspections that are beyond the scope of the augmented inservice inspection program included in the TSs.
The augmented inservice inspection program contained in the TSs is not being modified.
General Design Criterion 14 of Appendix A of 10CFR50 states:
"The reactor coolant pressure boundary shall be... tested so as to have an extremely low probability of abnormal leakage, of rapidly propagating failure, and of gruss rupture." The proper scope and expansion criteria for special steam generator tube inspections is determined such that the requirement of the general design criterion will be met. Additionally, special inspections utilize calculations of minimum acceptable wall thickness per the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.121, " Basis for plugging Degraded Steam Generator Tubes."
This change does not modify any' parameter that will increase radioactivity in the primary system or increase the amount of radioactive steam released from the secondary safety valves or atmospheric dump valves in the event of a tube rupture.
The administrative corrections made to correct inconsistencies introduced in previous TS amendments do not affect reactor o or accident analyses and have no radiological consequences. perations 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 scope of this change does not establish a potential new accident precursor. The design basis accident analyses for ANO-2 include the consequences of a double-ended break of one steam generator tube which bounds other postulated failure mechanisms.
The proposed change would permit determination of alternate inspection criteria for special inspections which are in addition to the inservice
. inspections required by the TSs. The equipment used in special inspections would not affect any plant components differently than those used for TS required inspections.
The corrections made to remove inconsistencies introduced in previous TS amendments are administrative and do not change the design, configuration, or method of operation of the plant.
Therefore, this change does rat 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.
As previously stated, a double-ended rupture of one steam generator tube is accounted for in the AN0-2 design basis accident analysis.
Safety margins to detect and repair tube defects prior to rupture are reflected by the 0.5 GPM primary to secondary leakage limit stated in the ANO-2 TSs and the minimum acceptable wall thickness criteria included in regulatory Guide 1.121. As stated in the ANO-2 TS Bases, cracks having a primary to secondary leakage less than the 0.5 GPM limit during operation will have an adequate margin of safety to withstand the loads imposed during normal operation and by postulated accidents.
Considering that special inspections are'in addition to the inservice inspection program defined in the ANO-2 TSs, that the scope of special inspections are determined taking into consideration General Design Criteria 14, and that leakage detection capability is not being modified, the exemption of special inspections from the requirements of the augmented inservice inspection program does not significantly reduce the margin of safety.
The other administrative changes do not reduce TS operability and surveillance requirements, and therefore, do not reduce any margin of safety.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
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 Comission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any coments 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 amendmcnt 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 Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FELERAL 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 4, 1995, 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 writter, 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, Arkansar 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 Safei.y 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
.. - =. -. -
. ~.
l l
i.
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. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to I
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 i
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' f
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 4
controverted.
In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a cone.ise statement of the i
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 c' which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner l
intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.
Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists c
with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall
r
! i 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 l
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
l 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 invcives a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the is m nce 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, Attention: Docketing and Services J
. 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 Wastern 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 Mr.
William D. Beckner: 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 Ccmmission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, Winston & Strawn, 3400 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for % ave 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 29, 1994, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,
_g_
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 29th day of November 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATO9Y COMMISSION M
^
~
George Kalman, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects -III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
?
J
,