[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9268-9270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-4621]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-368]


Entergy Operations, 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. 
DPR-51 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee) for operation 
of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1 (ANO-1), located in Pope 
County, Arkansas.
    The proposed amendment would allow the use of the repair roll 
technology (reroll) for the upper tubesheet region of the ANO-1 steam 
generators. The reroll technology is proposed as an alternative to the 
existing technical specification requirements to either sleeve or plug 
steam generator tubes found during inservice inspections to have 
defects that exceed the stated repair criteria. The reroll process has 
been developed to repair tubes with flaws in the tubesheet region by 
creating a new mechanical tube to tubesheet structural joint below the 
tube defect indications.
    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. Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or 
Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
    The reroll process utilizes the original tube configuration and 
extends the roll expanded region. Thus 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 loading.
    The qualification of the reroll joint is based on establishing a 
mechanical roll length which will carry all of the structural loads 
imposed on the tubes with required margins. A series of tests and 
analyses were performed to establish this length. Tests that were 
performed included leak, tensile, fatigue, ultimate load, and eddy 
current measurement uncertainty. The analyses evaluated plant 
operating and faulted loads in addition to tubesheet bow effects. 
Testing and analysis evaluated the tube springback and radial 
contact stresses due to temperature, pressure, and tubesheet bow. At 
worst case, a tube leak would occur with the result being a primary 
to secondary system leak. Any tube leakage would be bounded by the 
ruptured tube evaluation which has been previously analyzed. The 
potential for a tube rupture is not increased by the use of the 
reroll process.
    The reroll process establishes a new pressure boundary for the 
associated tube in the upper tubesheet below the flaw. Qualification 
testing indicates that normal and faulted leakage from the new 
pressure boundary joint would be well below the Technical 
Specification limits. Since the normal and faulted leak rates are 
well within the Technical Specification limits, the analyzed 
accident scenarios are still bounding.
    Applying a hydraulic expansion prior to making a repair roll 
near the secondary face of the upper tubesheet minimizes the 
potential for Obrigheim denting of the tube above the new roll. The 
hydraulic expansion does not have an adverse impact on the 
structural integrity of the tube or tubesheet. A tube that is 
rerolled deep into the tubesheet and not hydraulically expanded has 
the potential of denting inward if water is trapped between the new 
and old roll regions. The dented portion of the tube would be 
outside the pressure boundary and therefore not a safety concern. If 
the tube were dented, such that future inspections would not be 
possible, the tube would have to be removed from service.
    Based on the Framatome Technologies Inc. qualification, as well 
as the history for similar industry repair rolls, there are no new 
safety issues associated with a reroll repair. Therefore, this 
change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
    2. Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of 
Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
    The reroll process establishes a new pressure boundary for the 
associated tube in the upper tubesheet below the flaw. The new roll 
transition may eventually develop primary water stress corrosion 
cracking (PWSCC) and require additional repair. Industry experience 
with roll transition cracking has shown that PWSCC in roll 
transitions are normally short axial cracks, with extremely low leak 
rates. The standard MRPC eddy current inspection during the 
refueling outages have proven to be successful in detecting these 
defects early enough in their progression to facilitate repair.
    In the unlikely event the rerolled 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. Therefore, this change does not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from 
any previously evaluated.
    3. Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the Margin of 
Safety.
    A tube with degradation can be kept in service through the use 
of the reroll process. The new roll expanded interface created with 
the tubesheet satisfies all of the necessary structural and leakage 
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. 
Consequently, this change does not involve a significant reduction 
in the margin of safety.
    Based upon the reasoning presented above and the previous 
discussion of the amendment request, Entergy Operations has 
determined that the requested change does not involve a significant 
hazards consideration.


[[Page 9269]]


    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.
    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 derating or shutdown 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 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 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 March 26, 1998, 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 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 20555-0001, 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 Mr. Nicholas S. Reynolds, Winston & 
Strawn, 1400 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 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

[[Page 9270]]

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)(l)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated February 9, 1998, 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 18th day of February 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William D. Reckley,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-4621 Filed 2-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P