[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73080-73082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33777]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-313]
Entergy Operations, Inc. Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1; Notice
of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DRP-51, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for
operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) located in Pope
County, Arkansas.
This proposed change would amend Technical Specification (TS)
4.18.5.b, ``Steam Generator Tubing Surveillance--Acceptance Criteria,''
to allow tube 110/60 to remain inservice through the current operating
cycle (Cycle 16) with two axial indications that have potential through
wall depths greater than the plugging limit. The axial indications are
located in the roll transition region and are contained within the
upper tubesheet.
The licensee requested that this proposed amendment be processed as
an exigent request, pursuant to Section 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The exigency is created by the
inability of ANO-1 to fully comply with TS 4.18.5.b. With ANO-1
operating at 100 percent power, members of the licensee's technical
staff generated a condition report (CR) that questioned the integrity
of an individual steam generator tube that was currently inservice in
the ``A'' steam generator. This CR documented that during a review of
eddy current data taken during the last refueling outage, it was
identified that steam generator tube 110/60 contained two axial
indications in the upper roll transition area that exceeded the tube
plugging limit. However, the licensee failed to repair this tube
through means of either rerolling or plugging. TS 4.18.5.b indicates
that the steam generator shall be demonstrated operable following a
steam generator inspection after completing repair activities for all
tubes that have indications that exceed the plugging limit. As a
result, the ``A'' steam generator was considered inoperable due to the
failure to take action after completion of the surveillance and TS
3.1.1.2, ``Reactor Coolant System--Steam Generators'' was entered. This
TS has no associated required action for an inoperable steam generator.
Therefore, TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 was entered,
as appropriate, to address this condition. TS LCO 3.0.3 requires,
within one hour, that action be taken to place the unit in an operating
condition in which the TS does not apply through the initiation of a
plant shutdown.
Based on the circumstances described above, the NRC verbally issued
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on December 15, 1999. The
NOED was documented by letter dated December 17, 1999. The NOED
expressed the NRC's intention to exercise discretion not to enforce
compliance with TS LCO 3.0.3 and TS 3.1.1.2 until the NRC staff acts on
the licensee's exigent TS amendment request to revise TS 4.18.5.b with
a footnote to address continued operation during the remainder of this
fuel cycle with tube 110/60 inservice. The licensee submitted the
exigent TS amendment request on December 16, 1999.
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.
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 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
[[Page 73081]]
(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:
An evaluation of the proposed change has been performed in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1) regarding no significant hazards
considerations using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A discussion
of these standards as they relate to this amendment request follows:
Criterion 1--Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the
Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The OTSGs [Once Through Steam Generators] are used to remove
heat from the reactor coolant system (RCS) during normal operation
and during accident conditions. The OTSG tubing forms a substantial
portion of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. An OTSG tube
failure is a violation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and
is a specific accident analyzed in the ANO-1 Safety Analysis Report
(SAR).
The purpose of the periodic surveillance performed on the OTSGs
in accordance with ANO-1 Technical Specification 4.18 is to ensure
that the structural integrity of this portion of the RCS will be
maintained. The technical specification plugging limit of 40% of the
nominal tube wall thickness requires tubes to be repaired or removed
from service because the tube may become unserviceable prior to the
next inspection. Unserviceable is defined in the technical
specifications as the condition of a tube if it leaks or contains a
defect large enough to affect its structural integrity in the event
of an operating basis earthquake, a loss-of-coolant accident, or a
steam line break. Of these accidents, the most sever condition with
respect to axial cracking in the upper roll transition (URT) of a
tube within the tubesheet is a main steam line break (MSLB). During
this event the differential pressure across the tube could be as
high as 2500 psid [pounds per square inch differential]. The rupture
of a tube during this event could permit the flow of reactor coolant
into the secondary system thus bypassing the containment.
From testing performed on simulated flaws within the tubesheet
it has been shown that the axial indications within the upper tube
sheet left in service during cycle 16 do not represent structurally
significant flaws which would increase probability of a tube failure
beyond that currently assumed in the ANO-1 SAR.
Burst tests were conducted on tubing with simulated flaws within
the tubesheet. In these tests, through-wall holes of varying sizes
up to 0.5 inch in diameter were drilled in test specimens. The
flawed specimen tubes were then inserted into a simulated tubesheet
and pressurized. In all cases the tube burst away from the flaw in
that portion of the tube that was outside the tubesheet. The size of
these simulated flaws bound the indications left in service within
the upper tubesheet during 1R15 [refueling outage following the
completion of operating cycle 15]. These tests demonstrate for flaws
similar to the axial indications in the ANO-1 upper tubesheet that
the tubes will not fail at this location under accident conditions.
The dose consequences of a MSLB accident are analyzed in the
ANO-1 accident analysis. This analysis assumes a 1 gpm [gallon per
minute] OTSG tube leak and that the unit has been operating with 1%
defective fuel. The postulated accident induced leak rate
contribution at the end of cycle from these indications is
negligible.
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 OTSGs are passive components. The intent of the technical
specification surveillance requirements is being met by this change
in that adequate structural and leakage integrity will be
maintained. The proposed change introduces no new modes of plant
operation.
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 ANO-1 Technical Specification Bases specify that the
surveillance requirements (which includes the plugging limit) are to
ensure the structural integrity of this portion of the RCS pressure
boundary. The technical specification plugging limit of 40% of the
nominal tube wall thickness requires tubes to be repaired or removed
from service because the tube may become unserviceable prior to the
next inspection. Unserviceable is defined in the technical
specifications as the condition of a tube if it leaks or contains a
defect large enough to affect its structural integrity in the event
of an operating basis earthquake, a loss-of-coolant accident, or a
MSLB. Of these accidents the most severe condition with respect to
flaws within the tubesheet is the MSLB.
Testing of simulated through wall flaws of up to 0.5 inch in
diameter within a tubesheet showed that the tubes always failed
outside of the tubesheet. Thus the structural requirement of the
bases of the surveillance specification is satisfied.
Leakage under accident conditions would be limited due to the
small size of the flaws and would be low enough to ensure offsite
dose limits are not exceeded.
Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
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 and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 12, 2000, 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 accessible
electronically through ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the
NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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
[[Page 73082]]
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 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 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: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, or 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 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire,
Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005-3502,
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 amendment dated December 16, 1999, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible
electronically through ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the
NRC Web site
(http://www.nrc.gov).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
M. Christopher Nolan,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV &
Decommissioning Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-33777 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
