[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53769-53772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-26304]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Wisconsin Public Service Company, Wisconsin Power and Light 
Company, Madison Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No 
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing

[Docket No. 50-305]
    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

[[Page 53770]]

considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-43 issued to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Wisconsin Power 
and Light Company, and Madison Gas and Electric Company (the licensee), 
for operation of the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant, located in Kewaunee 
County, Wisconsin.
    The proposed amendment would change Technical Specification (TS) 
requirements related to steam generator tubes to allow a laser-welded 
repair of Westinghouse hybrid expansion joint (HEJ) sleeved 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.
    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. Operation of the KNPP in accordance with the proposed license 
amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The laser weld repair of HEJ sleeved tubes will not affect the 
tube, sleeve or weld stress conditions or fatigue usage factors such 
that the limits of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code are 
exceeded. Strain gauge testing of the laser-weld repaired HEJ sleeved 
tubes indicates tube far field stresses above and below the upper HEJ 
are similar. The magnitude of these stresses are slightly less than 
those associated with far field residual stresses for the two most 
recent domestic LWS programs. Accelerated corrosion testing of the 
prototypic repair welds in special fixtures designed to simulated 
locked tube configuration show that the expected lifetime of the repair 
welds exceeds the current license. Therefore, use of the laser-welded 
repair process will not result in an increased probability of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    A post weld UT inspection will be required to verify minimum 
acceptable weld thickness to ensure that weld stresses do not exceed 
ASME Code limits for both stress intensity and fatigue usage. Leakage 
testing of LWS joints at pressure conditions far exceeding any plant 
normal or faulted conditions indicate the weld is leaktight at all 
plant conditions. Mechanical testing of 7/8 inch laser welded tubesheet 
sleeves installed in roll expanded tubes has shown that the individual 
joint structural strength of Alloy 690 laser welded sleeves under 
normal, upset and faulted conditions provides margin to acceptable 
limits. These acceptance limits bound the most limiting (3 times normal 
operating pressure deferential) recommended by RG 1.121.
    The HEJ sleeve plugging limit as currently defined in the KNPP TSs 
is reduced from 31% to 24% throughwall due to the use of ASME code 
minimum material property values for the sleeve material. A parent tube 
plugging limit of 50% continues to apply to the tube length adjacent to 
and above the weld. Minimum wall thickness requirements (used for 
developing the depth based plugging limit for the sleeve) are 
determined using the guidance of RG 1.121 and the pressure stress 
equation of Section III of the ASME Code.
    The hypothetical consequences of failure of the laser-welded 
repaired HEJ would be bounded by the current SG tube rupture analysis 
covered in the KNPP Updated Safety Analysis Report. Due to the slight 
reduction in diameter caused by the sleeve wall thickness, primary 
coolant release rates would be slightly less than assumed for the SGTR, 
and therefore would result in lower primary fluid mass release to the 
secondary system. For a postulated break location immediately above the 
repair weld the metal-to-metal interference fit provided by the 
original roll expansion would greatly reduce leak rates. Tube fixity 
conditions in the Kewaunee SGs at the support plate intersections are 
such that sufficient resistance to end cap loads are believed to be 
provided, therefore, axial motion of the postulated separated tube is 
not expected to occur, and leak rates would be expected to be well 
below make-up capacity.
    The laser weld repair process does not change existing reactor 
coolant system flow conditions, therefore, existing LOCA analysis 
results will be unaffected. Plant response to design basis accidents 
for the current tube plugging and flow conditions are not affected by 
the repair process; no new tube diameter restrictions are introduced. 
Therefore, the application of the repair weld will not increase the 
consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
    2. The proposed license amendment request does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    Application of laser-welded repair of HEJ sleeved tubes will not 
introduce significant or adverse changes to the plant design basis. The 
general configuration of the HEJ sleeve is unaffected by the repair 
weld process. The repair process also does not represent a potential to 
affect any other plant component. Stress and fatigue analysis of the 
repair has shown that the ASME Code and Regulatory Guide 1.121 criteria 
are not exceeded. Application of the laser weld repair of HEJ sleeved 
tubes maintains overall tube bundle structural and leakage integrity at 
a level consistent to that of the originally supplied tubing during all 
plant conditions. The laser weld repair process does not provide a 
mechanism resulting in an accident outside of the area affected by the 
repair. Any hypothetical accident as a result of potential tube or 
sleeve degradation in the repaired portion of the joint is bounded by 
the existing tube rupture accident analysis. Therefore, use of the 
laser-welded repair process will 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 the margin of safety.
    The laser weld repair of the HEJ sleeved tubes has been shown to 
restore integrity of the tube bundle consistent with its original 
design basis conditions, i.e., tube/sleeve operational and faulted load 
stresses and cumulative fatigue usage are bounded by the ASME Code 
requirements and the repaired tubes are leaktight under all plant 
conditions. Application of the laser-welded repair will not result in 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 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.

[[Page 53771]]

    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 preventing startup 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 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 November 14, 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 University of Wisconsin, Cofrin Library, 
2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin. 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, 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 Gail H. Marcus: 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

[[Page 53772]]

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 6, 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 University of Wisconsin, Cofrin 
Library, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, Wisconsin.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of October 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Richard J. Laufer,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3 Division of Reactor 
Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-26304 Filed 10-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P