ML20094R432
| ML20094R432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1992 |
| From: | Peterson S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20094R435 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9204100389 | |
| Download: ML20094R432 (9) | |
Text
.
~
4 4
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License No. NPF-6 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) located in Pope County Arkarsas.
The proposed amendment would revise the Surveillance Requirements for ANO-2 steam generator (SG) tubing, Technical Specification (TS) 4.4.5.
This revision would allow the installation of tube sleeves as an alternative to plugging defective SG tubes.
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 Commission's 4
regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facil ty 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-9204100389 920331 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
.~.
m I
2 redgetion 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:
(1) The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to permit the use of SG tubing sleeves as an alternative to tube plugging is a safe and effective repair procedure that does not require removing a tube from service. Mechanical strength, corrosion resistance, installation methods, and inservice inspection techniques of sleeves have been shown to meet NRC acceptance criteria.
Analytical verification will be performed using design and operating transient parameters selected to envelop loads imposed during normal operating, upset and accident conditions.
Fatigue and stress analysis of sleeved tube assemblies will be completed in accordance with the requirements of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section 111.
The results of the qualification testing, analyses and plant ooerating experience will demonstrate that the sleeving process is t.n acceptable means of maintaining SG tube ir.tegrity.
Furthermore, the sleeve assemblies can be monitored through periodic inspections with eddy current test techniques.
l-The TSs continue to require isolation of a tube or sleeve containir., a detected 40% reduction in the primary to secondary system pressure boundary.
The consequences of accidents previously analyzed are not increased as a result of sleeving activities.
In the case of a tube rupture, the sleeve may actually result ia a slightly reduced leak / flow rate through the broken tube due to the smaller effective flow area.
The minor reduction in flow area 1
i 3
associated with a tube sleeve has no significant effect on SG performance with respect to heat transfer or system flow resistance and pressure drop, in any case, all analytical' impacts are clearly bounded by evaluations which demonstrate the acceptability of tube plugging which totally removes the tube from service.
Therefore, in comparison to plugging, tube sleeving is considered a significant improvement with respect to steam generator performance.
The cumulative impact of multiple sleeved tubes is evaluated to ensure the effects remain within the analytical design bases (both normal and accident).
Therefore, based on the above, this change doe.c not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
A sleeved tube performs the same function, in the same passive manner, as an unsleeved tube.
Tube sleeves are designed, qualified, and maintained under the stress and pressure limits of ASME Section III and Regulatory Guide 1.121.
Eddy current testing is performed following installation of each sleeve. This is done to verify proper installation of the sleeve and to obtain a baseline eddy current reading for each sleeve in order to monitor for subsequent degradation of the primary to secondary pressure boundary.
Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created.
(3) The proposed change 3es not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
SG tube integrity is maintained under the same limits for sleeved tubes
M 4
as for unsleeved tubes; i.e., ASME Section 111 and Regulatory Guide 1.121.
The degradation limit at which a tube is considered inoperable remains unchanged and is detectable for sleeves as well as tubes. The TSs continue to require monitoring and restriction of primary to secondary system leakage through the SGs, such that there remains reasonable assurance that a significant increase in leakage, due to failure of a sleeved (or unsleeved) tube, will be detected.
The slight reduction in RCS flow, due to sleeving, is considered to have an insignificant impact on SG operation during normal operation and accident conditions and is clearly bounded by ti!e plugging evaluations.
The TSs will continue to contain reporting requirements for tubes which have had their degradation spanned (regardless whether the tube is plugged or sleeved).
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 Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any comments received within thirty (30) days after-the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Directives Review Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services,
5 Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, 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 20555. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By May 4, 1992, 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 written 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 20555 and at the local public document room located at Tomlinson Lib.
y, Arkansas 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 Safety and Licensing Board, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
L' l
4 6
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 shoulo specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following 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 intervene or who has been' admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (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 fifteen (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 t.tention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide
4 7
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 pt.cticipate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the crder granting leave to intervene, and nave 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 final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
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 involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.
However, should circumstances change
8 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 Comission 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.
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.
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 Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the above date.
Where petitions are filed during the last ten (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) 325-6000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John T. Larkins:
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 L
of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Nicholas S.
Reynolds, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, attorney for the licensee.
9 Nontimely filings of petitions for_ leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained l
absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified ir 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 30, 1992, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas, 72801.
Dated at Rockville, Maryiand, this 31st day of March 1992.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C]% S.
\\
Sheri R. Peterson, Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
-~
.