[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55835-55837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28529]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287]


Duke Energy Corporation, Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 
3; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility 
Operating Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration 
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55, issued to the Duke Energy Corporation (the 
licensee), for operation of the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 
3 located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
    If approved, the proposed amendments to the Technical 
Specifications (TS) would allow use of a rerolling process as an 
additional repair method for steam generator tube degradation.
    Currently, Unit 1 is shut down for its end-of-cycle 17 refueling 
outage. During a non-destructive examination of the hot leg tubesheet, 
indications of tube degradation was found in the upper tubesheet region 
of approximately 900 tubes in the 1B steam generator. The licensee has 
proposed use of a rerolling process to ensure that the area of 
degradation will not serve as a pressure boundary once the repair roll 
is installed, thus, permitting the tube to remain in service. The 
current TS only allow use of a sleeving process to repair steam 
generator tubes, otherwise the tubes must be removed from service by 
plugging. Since the reroll process is not contained in the Oconee TS as 
an approved repair method, NRC staff approval of the amendments is 
necessary prior to exceeding 250  deg.F in the Unit 1 Reactor Coolant 
System. Unit 1 is presently expected to restart in the third week of 
November 1997.
    Therefore, the amendments must be processed prior to that date. Any 
delay would delay the startup, which requires that the amendments be 
processed under exigent circumstances.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, 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

[[Page 55836]]

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:

    This proposed change has been evaluated against the standards in 
10 CFR 50.92 and has been determined to involve no significant 
hazards, in 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?
    No. The implementation of the tube reroll does not increase the 
probability of occurrence of an accident or the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated.
    Since reroll utilizes the original tube configuration and 
extends the roll expanded region, 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 loadings.
    At worst case, a tube leak would occur with the result being a 
primary to secondary system leak. Should a tube leak occur, the 
impact is bounded by the ruptured tube evaluation which has been 
analyzed previously. The potential for a tube rupture is not 
increased by the use of the reroll process.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from the accidents previously evaluated?
    No. Operation of the steam generators with reroll repaired tubes 
does not create the possibility of a new or different accident from 
the accidents previously evaluated.
    The potential failure of the tube due to the defect which 
required the tube to initially be repaired is covered during the 
qualification of the reroll process. Qualification testing indicates 
that normal and faulted leakage would be well below the Technical 
Specification limits. Since the normal and faulted leak rates are 
well within the Technical Specification limit, the analyzed accident 
scenarios are still bounding.
    The new roll transition may eventually develop PWSCC [primary 
water stress-corrosion cracking] and require additional repair. 
Since the roll transition is located within the tubesheet, it is not 
possible for the degradation to result in a tube rupture. 
Additionally, industry experience with roll transition cracking has 
shown that PWSCC in roll transitions is normally short axial cracks, 
with extremely low leak rates. Finally, since the new roll 
transition is completely within the tubesheet there is no 
possibility of the repaired tube failing and impacting adjacent 
tubes.
    In the unlikely event the reroll repaired 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.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
    No. Based on the previous response, the protective boundaries of 
the steam generator are preserved.
    A tube with degradation can be kept in service through the use 
of the reroll process. The new undegraded roll expanded interface 
created with the tubesheet satisfies all of the necessary 
structural, leakage, and heat transfer 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.
    Duke has concluded based on the above information that there are 
no significant hazards involved in this amendment request.

    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 
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 
Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications 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 November 28, 1997, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West South 
Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina. 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

[[Page 55837]]

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 two weeks 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: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff, 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 M. J. Michael McGarry, III, Winston 
and Strawn, 1200 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, 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 amendments dated October 20, 1997, 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 Oconee County Library, 501 West 
South Broad Street, Walhalla, South Carolina.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of October 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
David E. LaBarge,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate II-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-28529 Filed 10-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P