ML20198G044
| ML20198G044 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198G010 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801120236 | |
| Download: ML20198G044 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -
$ P toog p *-
1 UNITED STATES s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, o.C. 3004H001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.187 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-6 ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INC.
AEt.NSAS NUCLEAR ONE. UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-368
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 24, 1997 Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee),
submitted a request to change the Technical Specifications (TS) at Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2). The proposed changes incorporate steam generator (SG)tubesleeveeddycurrent(FC)inspectioncriteriainresponsetoa January 7, 1997, letter (com the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff to the licensee.
2.0 DISCUSSION The current TS at ANO-2 describe the EC inspection criteria for SG tubes without particular reference to sleeve inspections. Without explicit inspection criteria in the TS, the requirements for the initial sample scope and subsequent expansion criteria for sleeve inspections are based on existing TS requirements (e.g., 3% initial sample scope).
Field experience has demonstrated the inadequacy of the 3% initial sample scope to reliably detect SG tube degradation.
In practice, most, if not all, utilities perform EC inspections in accordance with the more comprehensive Electric Power Research Institute's The EPRI guidelin(EPRI's) 'PWR Steam Generator Tube Examination Guidelines."es call for a the 3% requirement in the current ANO-2 TS. The 20% initial sample is more likely to lead to the identification of SG tube degradation and subsequent inspection expansion.
The NRC staff considers the EC inspection scope and expansion criteria described in the EPRI guidelines to be considerably more comprehensive and considers the requirement for an initial 20% sample scope to be an improvement over the 3% sample requirement in the existing T5.
In our January 7,1997, letter the staff recommended adoption of a sleeve inspection oregram at ANG-2 based on the EPRI tube sampling guidelines. The licensee fnH owed the staff's recommendation and proposed to add the sleeve inspection criteria to Table 4.4-2.
Existing Table 4.4-2 was expandod to Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 to explicitly define the EC inspection criteria for sleeves. The new tables 9001120236 971223 PDR ADOCK 05000368 P
E.
require a 20% initial inspection scope of each type of installed sleeve. The 2
tables also describe how the initial sample results would be classified, and, depending on the classification, the requirements for additional inspections of sleeved tubes.
In adoition, TS pages that reference Table 4.4-2 were revised to reference Tables 4.4-2 and 4.4-3.
{
The proposed TS specify inspection requirements for SG tube sleeves, including initial inspection scope and subsequent expansion criteria, that are e
consistent with industry practice and an improvement over the existing TS
~
m quirements.
The staff concludes the proposed TS changes provide adequate mpection et iteria for S3 tube sleeves.
[
1.0 STATL,idSULTATION In accordar.ce with the Comission's regulations, the Arkansas State official was notified of the proposed issuance cf the amendment. The State official had no coments.
j 4.0 ENVIRCNMENTAl CONSIDERAUph i
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. Tht. NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards i
it consideration, and there has been no public coment on such finding (62 FR 38134). Accerdingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CiR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission<s regulaticas, and (3) the issuancs of the amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
F Principal Contributcr:
S. M. Coffia bate: December 23, 1997 m..
_.. _ _