[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51561-51563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24897]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 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.a.9 and its associated Bases to allow the use of steam generator
repair roll technology (re-roll) as a repair method for tube defects
identified in the steam generator upper tubesheet region. Tubes
repaired by this proposed amendment would be allowed to remain in-
service for one fuel cycle of operation through the end of fuel Cycle
16. This repair method would credit both the re-roll mechanical joint
and the tube-to-tubesheet weld in demonstrating the pressure boundary
capabilities and the structural integrity of the repair.
The Commission issued Amendment 190 to Operating License No. DRP-51
on April 10, 1998. This amendment provided the initial approval to use
the re-roll methodology as an alternative to either sleeving or
plugging steam generator tubes found during inservice inspections to
have defects that exceed the stated repair criteria. The allowance to
apply re-roll technology was based on Revision 00 to the Framatome
Technologies Topical Report BAW-10232P, ``OTSG [Once Through Steam
Generator] Repair Roll Qualification Report (Including Hydraulic
Expansion Evaluation),'' dated January 1998. This report evaluated the
acceptability of repairing a steam generator tube with a defect in the
upper tubesheet region by mechanically rolling the tube into the upper
tubesheet below the defect location. The repair roll provides a
mechanical joint within the tubesheet bore creating a new pressure
boundary, which removes the defect from service. The repair roll was
qualified to provide a leakage barrier and structural integrity under
worst case design conditions without crediting the original tube roll
or the tube-to-tubesheet weld. The Commission's approval of Amendment
190 was based, in part, on the design criteria that the structural
integrity of the repair roll was sufficient to carry the worst case
design loading without relative motion between the tube and tubesheet.
On September 2, 1999, Framatome Technologies informed the licensee
that Topical Report BAW-10232P, Revision 00 did not consider the small
break loss-of-coolant accident (SMLOCA) as a limiting event. Further
consideration has demonstrated that the SMLOCA is the limiting
condition for structural integrity for tube-to-tubesheet re-rolls
located in the outer periphery of the tubsesheet. Framatome
Technologies has indicated that the re-roll is sufficient to adequately
perform its design function to maintain pressure boundary and
structural integrity. However, the re-roll joint is not
[[Page 51562]]
sufficiently robust to prevent relative movement between the tube and
tubesheet during the SBLOCA for all locations in the tubesheet.
Framatome Technologies is currently developing an addendum to the
topical report to address this condition. The licensee has evaluated
the existing condition for tubes that have been repaired with the re-
roll methodology using the guidance provided in Generic Letter No. 91-
18, ``Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section
on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions.'' However,
based on this information, the licensee cannot use the repair method
approved in Amendment 190 to perform any new repairs. Therefore, the
licensee submitted an application for an amendment to TS 4.18.5.a.9 to
allow the use of a re-roll repair methodology that would credit both
the re-roll joint and the tube-to-tubesheet weld in demonstrating the
structural integrity and pressure boundary capabilities of the repair.
This repair method would maintain the design criteria of no relative
movement between the tube and tubesheet under worst case design
loading. In addition, the licensee has provided criteria limiting the
types and sizes of defects that this repair method can be used to
ensure that the tube-to-tubesheet weld can be credited.
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
close proximity between the Framatome Technologies notification of the
nonconservative design assumption in Topical Report BAW-10232P,
Revision 00 and the ANO-1 refueling outage, which started on September
10, 1999. The failure of the Commission to act in a timely manner could
result in the delayed restart of ANO-1 from its current refueling
outage and/or cause unnecessary plugging of steam generator tubes.
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 (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.
Topical Report BAW-10232P, ``OTSG Repair Roll Qualification
Report (Including Hydraulic Expansion Evaluation),'' Revision 00 was
approved by the NRC in Amendment 190 to the ANO-1 operating license.
This amendment allowed using the re-roll technology in the upper
tubesheet region of the once through steam generators (OTSG) for the
repair of defects in this region of the OTSG tubing. The re-roll
established a new pressure boundary for ensuring leakage is within
the design limits. The main steam line break (MSLB) was originally
concluded to be the limiting accident with respect to tube
structural integrity and leakage for the re-rolled tube joints.
Subsequent to the approval of the report, the worst case accident
for structural integrity of the re-roll joint was reevaluated to be
the small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA). The leakage
conclusions of Revision 00 of the topical report are conservative
for the SBLOCA.
Given the identified condition, to ensure the structural
integrity of the joint for installation of new re-roll repairs
during the current ANO-1 1R15 refueling outage, Entergy Operations
will credit the tube to tubesheet weld and the OTSG tube above the
re-roll. Sufficient structural margin will be provided to ensure
that the tube will not sever within the tubesheet. Inspections of
the tube area above the planned re-roll joint will be performed to
ensure that defects that could affect the structural integrity of
the tube will be removed from service by plugging. The potential
offsite dose consequences due to MSLB leakage as discussed in BAW-
10232P bound the SBLOCA event whereby the consequences of an
accident are unchanged from that previously considered. By ensuring
the load carrying capability of the tube above the re-roll and the
tube to tubesheet weld, the probability of an accident is not
increased.
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 limiting event for structural evaluation of the re-roll tube
joint is now a SBLOCA. The additional differential dilation effects
from reduced pressure in the steam generator tubes due to the SBLOCA
can reduce the interface fit of the new joint. This could allow some
potential displacement of the re-roll joint within the tubesheet.
For ANO-1 Cycle 16 operations, the structural integrity of the tube
will be ensured by crediting the load carrying capability of the
OTSG tube above the re-roll and the tube to tubesheet weld.
Even though the limiting event for structural integrity of the
re-roll joint was changed from a MSLB to a SBLOCA event, the effects
on ANO-1 OTSG tube integrity and the adjacent tubes are not
impacted. The re-roll joint will remain intact and will not create
any new adverse conditions or accidents.
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 design requirement contained in BAW-10232P, Revision 00 for
the re-roll repair joint was based on the joint carrying any normal
operating or accident loads and any primary to secondary leakage
through the joint is within design limits. The leakage
considerations of the re-roll joint are not affected by the SBLOCA
event and for this design criteria the MSLB is still the limiting
event. Allowing credit for the existing weld and tube above the new
re-roll repair, the design margin of the re-roll joint is not
reduced and the safety margin for structural integrity is still
maintained. There is no severance of the tube within the tubesheet
and adjacent steam generator tubes are unaffected.
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
[[Page 51563]]
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 October 25, 1999, 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 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 September 19, 1999, 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 20th day of September, 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. 99-24897 Filed 9-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
