[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 156 (Monday, August 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41904-41906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20112]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 50-315]
Indiana Michigan Power Co.; 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-58, issued to Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), for
operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in
Berrien County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would modify technical specifications
4.4.5.4 and 4.4.5.5, on steam generators, to allow for repair of hybrid
expansion joint sleeves under redefined repair boundary limits.
The licensee requested this change on an exigent basis because: (1)
The change is associated with steam generator tube repairs during the
Unit 1 refueling outage currently in progress, and (2) the empirical
data compiled from the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant steam generator tube
pulls in March 1995 is the primary support for this amendment and the
final implications and conclusions from assessment of that data are
just now being formulated. The Unit 1 tube repairs are currently
scheduled to begin on August 29, 1995.
The NRC staff has reviewed and concurred with the licensee's
reasons for requesting this amendment on an exigent basis.
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:
(1) Operation of the CNP [Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant] unit 1
in accordance with the proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
Mechanical testing has shown that the inherent structural
strength of the HEJ [hybrid expansion joint] provides sufficient
integrity such that the tube rupture capability recommendations of
RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.121 are met, even for instances of 100%
throughwall, 360 deg. circumferentially oriented degradation in the
HEJ hardroll lower transition region. Structural integrity
recommendations consistent with RG 1.121 are supplied for all tube
degradation 1.1 inch or greater below the bottom of the HEJ hardroll
upper transition. Based on test data, a bounding SLB [steam line
break] leak rate of 0.033 gpm for indications between 1.1 and 1.3
inch below the bottom of the hardroll upper transition is applied.
As the leakage data base is expanded and statistical basis
established, this SLB leakage allowance may be reduced. For
indications existing greater than 1.3 inch below the bottom of the
hardroll upper transition, SLB event leakage can be neglected.
Additional prevention from tube rupture is inherently provided
by the HEJ geometry. For RCS [reactor coolant system] release rates
to exceed the normal makeup capacity of the plant, approximately 120
gpm, the tube must be postulated to experience a complete
circumferential separation at the lower transition, and become
axially displaced by 3 to 3.25 inches, resulting in complete
geometric disassociation between the tube and sleeve resulting in
sufficient flow area to support leakage of 120 gpm. During the 1989
plug top release event at North Anna unit 1, primary to secondary
release rates were calculated to be less than 80 gpm, for a flow
area approximately 4 times larger than the flow area created by a
tube which has axially displaced by about 1.25 to 1.5 inch. Analysis
of the steam generator indicates that at a 95% cumulative
probability, the tube would experience an axial displacement of less
than the 1.1 inch boundary. At this level of axial displacement, a
ring of metal to metal contact would remain between the tube and
sleeve, and leakage would be far less than 120 gpm. Projected
leakage at this point is expected to be less than 2.5 gpm.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed repair boundary will not
result in tube rupture, even for a tube postulated to not behave as
predicted by the available test and pulled tube data.
The proposed technical specification change to support the
implementation of the HEJ sleeve tube repair boundary for parent
tube degradation in the HEJ hardroll lower transition region does
not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis
accident or the results of accident analyses for the current
technical specification minimum reactor coolant system flow rate.
Plugging limit criteria are established using the guidance of RG
1.121. Furthermore, per RG 1.83 recommendations, the sleeved tube
assembly can be monitored through periodic inspections with present
eddy current techniques.
(2) The proposed license amendment does not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
Implementation of the repair boundary will not introduce
significant or adverse changes to the plant design basis. Mechanical
testing of degraded sleeve joints supports the conclusions of the
calculations that the sleeve retains structural (tube burst)
capability consistent with RG 1.121. As with [the] initial
installation of sleeves, implementation of the alternate criteria
cannot interact with other portions of the RCS. Any hypothetical
accident as a result of potential tube degradation in the HEJ
hardroll lower transition region of the tube is bounded by the
existing tube rupture accident analysis. Neither the sleeve design
nor implementation of the tube repair boundary defined in Attachment
4 [Westinghouse Electric Corporation Proprietary Report, WCAP-14446]
affects any other component or location of the tube outside of the
immediate area repaired. In addition, as the installation of sleeves
and the impact on current plugging level analyses is accounted for,
any postulation that the alternate repair criteria for parent tube
degradation in the HEJ hardroll lower transition creates a new or
different type of accident is not supported.
(3) The proposed license amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The safety factors used in the establishment of the HEJ sleeved
tube alternate repair boundary for the disposition of indications in
the hardroll lower transition of potentially degraded parent tubes
are consistent with the safety factors in the ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code used in steam generator design. Based on the
sleeved tube geometry, it is unrealistic to consider that
application of the repair boundary could result in single tube leak
[[Page 41905]]
rates exceeding the normal makeup capacity during normal operating
conditions. The repair boundary established in Attachment 4 has been
developed using the methodology of RG 1.121. The performance
characteristics of postulated degraded parent tubes of HEJ tube/
sleeve joints have been verified by testing to retain structural
integrity and preclude significant leakage during normal and
postulated accident conditions. Testing indicates that postulated
circumferentially separated tubes which the repair boundary
addresses would not experience axial displacement during either
normal operation or SLB conditions. The existing offsite dose
evaluation performed for CNP unit 1 in support of the voltage based
plugging criteria for axial ODSCC [outside diameter stress corrosion
cracking] at TSP [tube support plate] intersections established a
faulted loop primary to secondary leak rate of 12.6 gpm using
technical specification dose equivalent Iodine-131 activity levels.
Following implementation of the criteria, postulated leakage from
all sources must not exceed 12.6 gpm in the faulted loop.
Maintenance of this limit will ensure that offsite doses would not
exceed the currently accepted limit of 10% of the 10 CFR [Part] 100
guidelines. The repair boundary uses a conservatively established
``per indication'' leak rate for estimation of SLB leakage. This
leak rate is applied to all indications left in service as a result
of the tube repair boundary, including non-throughwall indications
and a limited number of indications of circumferential throughwall
extent.
For a postulated indication whose performance is not
characteristic of the test and pulled tube data, and which would
experience axial displacement at the 95% cumulative probability
value following a postulated SLB event with no operator
intervention, leakage would not be expected to result in an
uncontrolled release of reactor coolant in excess of normal makeup
capacity.
For the three pulled tubes and nearly 1,000 crack indications
detected in the field, there were no instances of degradation of
elevations, (multiple expansion transitions) on either side of the
hardroll expansion in the same tube. This includes no instances of
non-detected degradation in the upper hydraulic and hardroll upper
expansion transitions for the pulled tubes. One tube was identified
in the most recent Kewaunee inspection with two separate
circumferential crack elevations within the hardroll lower
transition. Rapidly occurring degradation would not be expected at
the upper transitions, based partly on the field inspection results.
The available inspection results include two inspection programs
(1994 and 1995) at Kewaunee and one at Point Beach unit 2 (1994).
Through these three inspection programs, approximately 11,000 HEJ
sleeved tubes have been inspected using advanced probes.
The portions of the installed sleeve assembly which represent
the reactor coolant pressure boundary can be monitored for the
initiation and progression of sleeve/tube wall degradation, thus
satisfying the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.83.
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 15 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 15-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 15-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 Rules Review and
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555, 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 August 29, 1995, 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library,
500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085. 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
[[Page 41906]]
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, 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 John N. Hannon: 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, and to Gerald Charnoff,
Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20037, 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 August 4, 1995, 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library,
500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August 1995.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tae Kim,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-20112 Filed 8-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P