[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9268-9270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4621]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-368]
Entergy Operations, Inc.; 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) is
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
DPR-51 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee) for operation
of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1), located in Pope
County, Arkansas.
The proposed amendment would allow the use of the repair roll
technology (reroll) for the upper tubesheet region of the ANO-1 steam
generators. The reroll technology is proposed as an alternative to the
existing technical specification requirements to either sleeve or plug
steam generator tubes found during inservice inspections to have
defects that exceed the stated repair criteria. The reroll process has
been developed to repair tubes with flaws in the tubesheet region by
creating a new mechanical tube to tubesheet structural joint below the
tube defect indications.
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:
1. Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or
Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The reroll process utilizes the original tube configuration and
extends the roll expanded region. Thus 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 loading.
The qualification of the reroll joint is based on establishing a
mechanical roll length which will carry all of the structural loads
imposed on the tubes with required margins. A series of tests and
analyses were performed to establish this length. Tests that were
performed included leak, tensile, fatigue, ultimate load, and eddy
current measurement uncertainty. The analyses evaluated plant
operating and faulted loads in addition to tubesheet bow effects.
Testing and analysis evaluated the tube springback and radial
contact stresses due to temperature, pressure, and tubesheet bow. At
worst case, a tube leak would occur with the result being a primary
to secondary system leak. Any tube leakage would be bounded by the
ruptured tube evaluation which has been previously analyzed. The
potential for a tube rupture is not increased by the use of the
reroll process.
The reroll process establishes a new pressure boundary for the
associated tube in the upper tubesheet below the flaw. Qualification
testing indicates that normal and faulted leakage from the new
pressure boundary joint would be well below the Technical
Specification limits. Since the normal and faulted leak rates are
well within the Technical Specification limits, the analyzed
accident scenarios are still bounding.
Applying a hydraulic expansion prior to making a repair roll
near the secondary face of the upper tubesheet minimizes the
potential for Obrigheim denting of the tube above the new roll. The
hydraulic expansion does not have an adverse impact on the
structural integrity of the tube or tubesheet. A tube that is
rerolled deep into the tubesheet and not hydraulically expanded has
the potential of denting inward if water is trapped between the new
and old roll regions. The dented portion of the tube would be
outside the pressure boundary and therefore not a safety concern. If
the tube were dented, such that future inspections would not be
possible, the tube would have to be removed from service.
Based on the Framatome Technologies Inc. qualification, as well
as the history for similar industry repair rolls, there are no new
safety issues associated with a reroll repair. Therefore, this
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of
Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
The reroll process establishes a new pressure boundary for the
associated tube in the upper tubesheet below the flaw. The new roll
transition may eventually develop primary water stress corrosion
cracking (PWSCC) and require additional repair. Industry experience
with roll transition cracking has shown that PWSCC in roll
transitions are normally short axial cracks, with extremely low leak
rates. The standard MRPC eddy current inspection during the
refueling outages have proven to be successful in detecting these
defects early enough in their progression to facilitate repair.
In the unlikely event the rerolled 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. Therefore, this change does not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of
Safety.
A tube with degradation can be kept in service through the use
of the reroll process. The new roll expanded interface created with
the tubesheet satisfies all of the necessary structural and leakage
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.
Consequently, this change does not involve a significant reduction
in the margin of safety.
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.
[[Page 9269]]
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 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 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 March 26, 1998, 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 Tomlinson Library, Arkansas Tech
University, Russellville, Arkansas. 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.
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 Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, Winston &
Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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
[[Page 9270]]
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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated February 9, 1998, 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-4621 Filed 2-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
