[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 84 (Tuesday, April 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19092-19094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10618]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-364]


Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 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. 
NPF-8 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (the licensee) 
for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, located in 
Houston County, Alabama.
    The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification 3/
4.4.6, ``Steam Generator Surveillance Requirements,'' which provides 
tube inspection requirements and acceptance criteria to determine the 
level of degradation for which a tube may remain in service. The 
proposed amendment would add definitions required for the L*-type 
criteria and prescribe the portion of the tube subject to those 
criteria.
    This requested Technical Specification (TS) change is a followup to 
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) granted to the licensee that 
is in effect from the time of issuance on April 23, 1996, until 
approval of this exigent TS. NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900, 
``Operations--Notices of Enforcement Discretion,'' requires that a 
followup TS amendment be issued within 4 weeks from the issuance of the 
NOED.
    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 Farley Nuclear Plant Unit steam generators 
in accordance with the proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    The supporting technical evaluations of the subject criteria 
demonstrate that the presence of the tubesheet enhances the tube 
integrity in the region of the hardroll by precluding tube 
deformation beyond its initial expanded outside diameter. The 
resistance to both tube rupture and tube collapse is strengthened by 
the presence of the tubesheet in that region. The result of the 
hardroll of the tube into the tubesheet is an interference fit 
between the tube and the tubesheet. Tube rupture [cannot] occur 
because the contact between the tube and tubesheet does not permit 
sufficient movement of tube material. In a similar manner, the 
tubesheet does not permit sufficient movement of tube material to 
permit buckling collapse of the tube during postulated LOCA [loss-
of-coolant accident] loadings.
    The type of degradation for which the L* criterion has been 
developed (cracking with an axial or near axial orientation) has 
been found not to significantly reduce the axial strength of a tube. 
An evaluation including analysis and testing has been done to 
determine the strength reduction for axial loads with simulated 
axial and near axial cracks. This evaluation provides the basis for 
the acceptance criteria for tube degradation subject to the L* 
criterion.
    The SRE [sound roll expansion] L* length is sufficient to 
preclude significant leakage from tube degradation located below the 
L* length. The existing Technical Specification leak rate 
requirements and accident analysis assumptions remain unchanged in 
the unlikely event that significant leakage from this region does 
occur. Any leakage from the tube within the tube sheet at any 
elevation in the tubesheet is fully bounded by the existing steam 
generator tube analysis included in the Farley Nuclear Plant Final 
Safety Analysis Report. A conservative leakage allowance for each L* 
tube is provided to determine the impact of L* criterion upon 
offsite doses in the event of a postulated double ended guillotine 
break of the main steam line outside of containment, but upstream of 
the main steam line isolation valves. Since Farley Unit 2 has 
implemented the Interim Plugging Criteria (IPC) for ODSCC [outside 
diameter stress corrosion cracking] at the tube support plates, 
projected steam line break (SLB) leakage at the end of the next 
successive operating cycle must be evaluated. Per Generic Letter 95-
05, plants implementing the IPC can utilize SLB leakage limits 
higher than the originally assumed 1.0 gpm primary to secondary 
leakage value provided an analysis of offsite doses consistent with 
Standard Review Plan methodology is performed. This analysis 
performed for the Farley Unit plant indicates that primary to 
secondary leakage of 11.2 gpm in the faulted loop (0.1 gpm in the 
intact loops) will result in offsite doses at the site boundary of 
less than 10% of the 10 CFR [Part] 100 guidelines. The total 
projected SLB leakage from all leakage sources must remain below 
this value. [Per Westinghouse analysis] addressing the L* 
methodology, the number of tube ends to which L* criterion can be 
applied is limited to 600 per steam generator. Using a bounding SLB 
leakage allowance per L* tube, the SLB leakage component from 600 L* 
tube ends will be less than 0.33 gpm in the faulted loop. The 
proposed L* criterion does not adversely impact any other previously 
evaluated design basis accident. As the current Unit 2 IPC SLB 
leakage has been calculated to be less than 2 gpm in the faulted 
loop, [an] SLB leakage margin of over 9 gpm is provided for this 
cycle.
    As noted above, tube rupture and pullout is not expected for 
tubes using the L* criterion. In addition to the L* length, a 
minimum length of SRE below the identified degradation must be 
established. The aggregate L* distance of SRE provides the 
structural integrity to prevent tube pullout.

[[Page 19093]]

Conservatively, it is assumed that the degraded band length does not 
provide any support in resisting tube pullout.
    Therefore SNC [Southern Nuclear Company] concludes that 
Operation of the Farley Nuclear Plant Unit steam generators in 
accordance with the proposed license amendment does not involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    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 proposed L* criterion does not introduce 
any significant changes to the plant design basis. Use of the 
criterion does not provide a mechanism to result in an accident 
initiated outside of the region of the tubesheet expansion. The 
structural integrity of L* tube will be maintained during all plant 
conditions. Any hypothetical accident as a result of any tube 
degradation in the expanded portion of the tube would be bounded by 
the existing tube rupture accident analysis. If it is postulated 
that a circumferential separation of an L* tube were to occur below 
the PLRL [pullout load reaction length], tube structural and leakage 
integrity will be maintained during all plant conditions.
    Verification of the L* distance of non-degraded tube roll 
expansion prevents the postulated separated tube from lifting out of 
the tubesheet during all plant conditions. Verification of the L* 
criterion prevents tube displacement of any magnitude, and 
therefore, postulated axial cracks existing a minimum of 0.5 inch 
from either the bottom of the roll transition or top of tubesheet, 
whichever is lower, from migrating out of the tubesheet.
    Therefore, SNC concludes that the proposed license amendment 
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed license amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The use of the L* criterion has been concluded to maintain the 
integrity of the tube bundle commensurate with the requirements of 
draft Regulatory Guide 1.121 under normal and postulated accident 
conditions. The safety factors used in the verification of the 
strength of the degraded tube are consistent with the safety factors 
in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code used in steam generator 
design. The L* length has been verified by testing to be greater 
than the length of roll expansion required to preclude significant 
leakage during normal and postulated accident conditions. The leak 
testing acceptance criteria are based on the primary to secondary 
leakage limit in Technical Specifications and the leakage 
assumptions used in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] accident 
analyses. The L* distance provides for structural integrity during 
all plant conditions.
    Implementation of the L* criterion will decrease the number of 
tubes which must be taken out of service with tube plugs or repaired 
with sleeves. Both plugs and sleeves reduce the RCS [reactor coolant 
system] flow margin, thus implementation of the L* criterion will 
maintain the margin of flow that would otherwise be reduced in the 
event of increased plugging or sleeving.
    Therefore, SNC, concludes based on the above, it is concluded 
that the proposed change does not result in a significant reduction 
in a loss of margin with respect to plant safety as defined in the 
Final Safety Analysis Report or the bases of the FNP [Farley Nuclear 
Plant] technical specifications.

    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 May 30, 1996, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama. 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

[[Page 19094]]

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, 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 Herbert N. Berkow: 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 M. Stanford 
Blanton, Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office Box 306, 1710 Sixth 
Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama, 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 April 23, 1996, 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 Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W. 
Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369, Dothan, Alabama.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of April 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Byron L. Siegel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-10618 Filed 4-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P