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

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