[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55835-55837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28529]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287]
Duke Energy Corporation, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and
3; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, issued to the Duke Energy Corporation (the
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and
3 located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
If approved, the proposed amendments to the Technical
Specifications (TS) would allow use of a rerolling process as an
additional repair method for steam generator tube degradation.
Currently, Unit 1 is shut down for its end-of-cycle 17 refueling
outage. During a non-destructive examination of the hot leg tubesheet,
indications of tube degradation was found in the upper tubesheet region
of approximately 900 tubes in the 1B steam generator. The licensee has
proposed use of a rerolling process to ensure that the area of
degradation will not serve as a pressure boundary once the repair roll
is installed, thus, permitting the tube to remain in service. The
current TS only allow use of a sleeving process to repair steam
generator tubes, otherwise the tubes must be removed from service by
plugging. Since the reroll process is not contained in the Oconee TS as
an approved repair method, NRC staff approval of the amendments is
necessary prior to exceeding 250 deg.F in the Unit 1 Reactor Coolant
System. Unit 1 is presently expected to restart in the third week of
November 1997.
Therefore, the amendments must be processed prior to that date. Any
delay would delay the startup, which requires that the amendments be
processed under exigent circumstances.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the amendment
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means
[[Page 55836]]
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:
This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards in
10 CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant
hazards, in 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?
No. The implementation of the tube reroll does not increase the
probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Since reroll utilizes the original tube configuration and
extends the roll expanded region, all of the design and operating
characteristics of the steam generator and connected systems are
preserved. The reroll joint length has been analyzed and tested for
design, operating, and faulted condition loadings.
At worst case, a tube leak would occur with the result being a
primary to secondary system leak. Should a tube leak occur, the
impact is bounded by the ruptured tube evaluation which has been
analyzed previously. The potential for a tube rupture is not
increased by the use of the reroll process.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from the accidents previously evaluated?
No. Operation of the steam generators with reroll repaired tubes
does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from
the accidents previously evaluated.
The potential failure of the tube due to the defect which
required the tube to initially be repaired is covered during the
qualification of the reroll process. Qualification testing indicates
that normal and faulted leakage would be well below the Technical
Specification limits. Since the normal and faulted leak rates are
well within the Technical Specification limit, the analyzed accident
scenarios are still bounding.
The new roll transition may eventually develop PWSCC [primary
water stress-corrosion cracking] and require additional repair.
Since the roll transition is located within the tubesheet, it is not
possible for the degradation to result in a tube rupture.
Additionally, industry experience with roll transition cracking has
shown that PWSCC in roll transitions is normally short axial cracks,
with extremely low leak rates. Finally, since the new roll
transition is completely within the tubesheet there is no
possibility of the repaired tube failing and impacting adjacent
tubes.
In the unlikely event the reroll repaired tube failed and
severed completely at the transition of the reroll region, the tube
would retain engagement in the tubesheet bore, preventing any
interaction with neighboring tubes. In this case, leakage is
minimized and is well within the assumed leakage of the design basis
tube rupture accident. In addition, the possibility of rupturing
multiple steam generator tubes is not increased.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. Based on the previous response, the protective boundaries of
the steam generator are preserved.
A tube with degradation can be kept in service through the use
of the reroll process. The new undegraded roll expanded interface
created with the tubesheet satisfies all of the necessary
structural, leakage, and heat transfer requirements. Since the joint
is constrained within the tubesheet bore, there is no additional
risk associated with tube rupture. Therefore, the analyzed accident
scenarios remain bounding, and the use of the reroll process does
not reduce the margin of safety.
Duke has concluded based on the above information that there are
no significant hazards involved in this amendment request.
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 14 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 14-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 14-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. 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 November 28, 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, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Oconee County Library, 501 West South
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina. 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 a 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
[[Page 55837]]
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 two weeks 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 the amendment is issued before the expiration of the 30-day
hearing period, the Commission will make a final determination on the
issue of no significant hazards consideration. If a hearing is
requested, 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 Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff, may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. 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 M. J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston
and Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, attorney for
the licensee.
Nontimely 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 amendments dated October 20, 1997, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West
South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of October 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David E. LaBarge,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-28529 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
