[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64376-64378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30900]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-368]


Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 
of Amedment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a 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. 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\'' O.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 evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a 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:

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-2) 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 10 CFR 100.
    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 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

[[Page 64377]]

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 
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 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.
    Written comments 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 Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the 
publication date and page number of this Federal 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 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 
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 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 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 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 
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 
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 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 
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.

[[Page 64378]]

    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 Commission, 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) 342-6700). 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) (i)-(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.
Kombiz Salehi,
Acting Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-30900 Filed 12-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P