[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