ML20135B151
| ML20135B151 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1996 |
| From: | Salehi K NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135B153 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9612040184 | |
| Download: ML20135B151 (8) | |
Text
'.
7590-01-P UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO l
FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS i
l CONSIDERATION DETERNINATION. AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING 1
l 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. for operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) located in Pope County, Arkansas.
The proposed amendments would change the surveillance requirements for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2) steam generator tubing. This proposed change references a new generic topical report (CEN-630-P, " Repair of 3/4" 0.D. Steam Generator Tubes Using Leak Tight Sleeves," Revision 01, November 1996).
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 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 1
evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant 9612040184 961129 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
l 1
I
}
l I
reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee l
has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
Criterion 1 - Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The proposed amendment continues to allow the ABB/ Combustion Engineering (CE) tungsten inert gas (TIG) welded expansion transition zone (ETZ) and tube support sleeves to be used as an alternate tube repair method for the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-Z) steam generators along with process improvements which are included in the topical report to be referenced. The sleeve configuration was designed and analyzed in accordance with the criteria of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.121 and Section III of the ASME Code and is unaffected by the enhancements that will be implemented. The consequences of leakage through the sleeved region of the tube, including the proposed enhancements, is bounded by the existing steam generator tube rupture (SGTR) analysis included in the ANO-2 Safety Analysis Report.
The proposed change reflects enhancements made to the installation inspection process which is identified in the currently licensed topical report (CEN-601-P, Revision 01-P). The new topical report (CEN-630-P, Revision -01) specifies that proper cleaning and inspection of the weld zone be performed prior to sleeve installation.
Also, eddy current testing (ECT) has been added as part of the sleeve acceptance criteria to ensure the structural integrity of the tube-to-sleeve weld joint. The ECT added allows disposition of certain non-significant indications outside the sleeve's pressure boundary without subsequent repair of the tube. Other changes caused by referencing a generic topical report, instead of a site-specific analysis, increase the conservatism already present with the currently licensed process. The lower primary-to-secondary leakage limit ensures that any dose contributed from a potential steam generator tube leak will be considerably lower than the dosage specified in 10CFR100.
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 proposed change to implement CEN-630-P, Revision 1, will not create a new or different type of accident. The changes reflect enhancements to the currently licensed installation / inspection process and would not affect any hypothetical accident as a result of potential tube or sleeve degradation in the repaired portion of the o
l.
tube. Such hypothetical accidents remain bounded by the existing SGTR analysis. The sleeve design does not affect any other component or portion of the steam generator tube outside of the immediate area repaired.
Therefore, this change does'not 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.
The currently licensed TIG welded sleeving repair of degraded steam generator tubes has been shown by analysis to restore the integrity of the tube to its original design basis condition. By implementing the proposed enhancements, the quality of the sleeve welds will be increased thereby reducing the potential for leaving a weld indication in service.
Installation / inspection enhancements are being made to a process which is currently licensed for use at ANO-2 by the NRC Staff. These enhancements would not have any adverse effects on the previously evaluated design transient or accident analysis. The enhancements only specify inspection methods of the weld zones which will ensure the integrity of the pressure boundary.
Reducing the allowable primary-to-secondary leakage rate through the steam generators actually increases the margin of safety by reducing potential dose contribution due to steam generator tube leakage.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
Therefore, based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous discussion of the amendment request, Entergy Operations has determined that the requested change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
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 30 days after the date of l
+
-a m
u--
-. 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 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 coments received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written coments 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 Comission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written coments 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 3,1997, 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 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, N.W., Washington, DC, and at the local public 4
document room located at the Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR 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 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 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
1 l 4 be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition 1
]
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 a
filed a petition for leave to intervene'or who has been admitted as a party l
j may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days l
prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such j
an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference f
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the l
petition to intervene which must in:lude a list of the contentions which are i
}
sought to be litigated in the matter.
Each contention must consist of a 3
l 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 i
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 l
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or f.
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.
j Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would l
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.
4 1
. J 1
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 i
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.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Comission, 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) 342t 6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following message addressed to William D. Beckner, Director, Project Directorate IV-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 Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, Winston & Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, attorney for the licensee.
Non-timely 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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated November 24, 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 Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas 72801.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of November 1996.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r
Kombiz Sa 1, Acting Project Manager Project Directorate IV-1 Division of Reactor Projects III/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation