[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51561-51563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24897]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-313]


Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 1; 
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. 
DRP-51, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for 
operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) located in Pope 
County, Arkansas.
    This proposed change would amend Technical Specification (TS) 
4.18.5.a.9 and its associated Bases to allow the use of steam generator 
repair roll technology (re-roll) as a repair method for tube defects 
identified in the steam generator upper tubesheet region. Tubes 
repaired by this proposed amendment would be allowed to remain in-
service for one fuel cycle of operation through the end of fuel Cycle 
16. This repair method would credit both the re-roll mechanical joint 
and the tube-to-tubesheet weld in demonstrating the pressure boundary 
capabilities and the structural integrity of the repair.
    The Commission issued Amendment 190 to Operating License No. DRP-51 
on April 10, 1998. This amendment provided the initial approval to use 
the re-roll methodology as an alternative to either sleeving or 
plugging steam generator tubes found during inservice inspections to 
have defects that exceed the stated repair criteria. The allowance to 
apply re-roll technology was based on Revision 00 to the Framatome 
Technologies Topical Report BAW-10232P, ``OTSG [Once Through Steam 
Generator] Repair Roll Qualification Report (Including Hydraulic 
Expansion Evaluation),'' dated January 1998. This report evaluated the 
acceptability of repairing a steam generator tube with a defect in the 
upper tubesheet region by mechanically rolling the tube into the upper 
tubesheet below the defect location. The repair roll provides a 
mechanical joint within the tubesheet bore creating a new pressure 
boundary, which removes the defect from service. The repair roll was 
qualified to provide a leakage barrier and structural integrity under 
worst case design conditions without crediting the original tube roll 
or the tube-to-tubesheet weld. The Commission's approval of Amendment 
190 was based, in part, on the design criteria that the structural 
integrity of the repair roll was sufficient to carry the worst case 
design loading without relative motion between the tube and tubesheet.
    On September 2, 1999, Framatome Technologies informed the licensee 
that Topical Report BAW-10232P, Revision 00 did not consider the small 
break loss-of-coolant accident (SMLOCA) as a limiting event. Further 
consideration has demonstrated that the SMLOCA is the limiting 
condition for structural integrity for tube-to-tubesheet re-rolls 
located in the outer periphery of the tubsesheet. Framatome 
Technologies has indicated that the re-roll is sufficient to adequately 
perform its design function to maintain pressure boundary and 
structural integrity. However, the re-roll joint is not

[[Page 51562]]

sufficiently robust to prevent relative movement between the tube and 
tubesheet during the SBLOCA for all locations in the tubesheet. 
Framatome Technologies is currently developing an addendum to the 
topical report to address this condition. The licensee has evaluated 
the existing condition for tubes that have been repaired with the re-
roll methodology using the guidance provided in Generic Letter No. 91-
18, ``Information to Licensees Regarding NRC Inspection Manual Section 
on Resolution of Degraded and Nonconforming Conditions.'' However, 
based on this information, the licensee cannot use the repair method 
approved in Amendment 190 to perform any new repairs. Therefore, the 
licensee submitted an application for an amendment to TS 4.18.5.a.9 to 
allow the use of a re-roll repair methodology that would credit both 
the re-roll joint and the tube-to-tubesheet weld in demonstrating the 
structural integrity and pressure boundary capabilities of the repair. 
This repair method would maintain the design criteria of no relative 
movement between the tube and tubesheet under worst case design 
loading. In addition, the licensee has provided criteria limiting the 
types and sizes of defects that this repair method can be used to 
ensure that the tube-to-tubesheet weld can be credited.
    The licensee requested that this proposed amendment be processed as 
an exigent request, pursuant to Section 50.91(a)(6) of Title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). The exigency is created by the 
close proximity between the Framatome Technologies notification of the 
nonconservative design assumption in Topical Report BAW-10232P, 
Revision 00 and the ANO-1 refueling outage, which started on September 
10, 1999. The failure of the Commission to act in a timely manner could 
result in the delayed restart of ANO-1 from its current refueling 
outage and/or cause unnecessary plugging of 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.
    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:

    An evaluation of the proposed change has been performed in 
accordance with 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1) regarding no significant hazards 
considerations using the standards in 10 CFR 50.92(c). A discussion 
of these standards as they relate to this amendment request follows:
    Criterion 1--Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the 
Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
    Topical Report BAW-10232P, ``OTSG Repair Roll Qualification 
Report (Including Hydraulic Expansion Evaluation),'' Revision 00 was 
approved by the NRC in Amendment 190 to the ANO-1 operating license. 
This amendment allowed using the re-roll technology in the upper 
tubesheet region of the once through steam generators (OTSG) for the 
repair of defects in this region of the OTSG tubing. The re-roll 
established a new pressure boundary for ensuring leakage is within 
the design limits. The main steam line break (MSLB) was originally 
concluded to be the limiting accident with respect to tube 
structural integrity and leakage for the re-rolled tube joints. 
Subsequent to the approval of the report, the worst case accident 
for structural integrity of the re-roll joint was reevaluated to be 
the small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA). The leakage 
conclusions of Revision 00 of the topical report are conservative 
for the SBLOCA.
    Given the identified condition, to ensure the structural 
integrity of the joint for installation of new re-roll repairs 
during the current ANO-1 1R15 refueling outage, Entergy Operations 
will credit the tube to tubesheet weld and the OTSG tube above the 
re-roll. Sufficient structural margin will be provided to ensure 
that the tube will not sever within the tubesheet. Inspections of 
the tube area above the planned re-roll joint will be performed to 
ensure that defects that could affect the structural integrity of 
the tube will be removed from service by plugging. The potential 
offsite dose consequences due to MSLB leakage as discussed in BAW-
10232P bound the SBLOCA event whereby the consequences of an 
accident are unchanged from that previously considered. By ensuring 
the load carrying capability of the tube above the re-roll and the 
tube to tubesheet weld, the probability of an accident is not 
increased.
    Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of any accident previously 
evaluated.
    Criterion 2--Does Not Create the Possibility of a New or 
Different Kind of Accident from any Previously Evaluated.
    The limiting event for structural evaluation of the re-roll tube 
joint is now a SBLOCA. The additional differential dilation effects 
from reduced pressure in the steam generator tubes due to the SBLOCA 
can reduce the interface fit of the new joint. This could allow some 
potential displacement of the re-roll joint within the tubesheet. 
For ANO-1 Cycle 16 operations, the structural integrity of the tube 
will be ensured by crediting the load carrying capability of the 
OTSG tube above the re-roll and the tube to tubesheet weld.
    Even though the limiting event for structural integrity of the 
re-roll joint was changed from a MSLB to a SBLOCA event, the effects 
on ANO-1 OTSG tube integrity and the adjacent tubes are not 
impacted. The re-roll joint will remain intact and will not create 
any new adverse conditions or accidents.
    Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
    Criterion 3--Does Not Involve a Significant Reduction in the 
Margin of Safety.
    The design requirement contained in BAW-10232P, Revision 00 for 
the re-roll repair joint was based on the joint carrying any normal 
operating or accident loads and any primary to secondary leakage 
through the joint is within design limits. The leakage 
considerations of the re-roll joint are not affected by the SBLOCA 
event and for this design criteria the MSLB is still the limiting 
event. Allowing credit for the existing weld and tube above the new 
re-roll repair, the design margin of the re-roll joint is not 
reduced and the safety margin for structural integrity is still 
maintained. There is no severance of the tube within the tubesheet 
and adjacent steam generator tubes are unaffected.

    Therefore, this change does not involve 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 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

[[Page 51563]]

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 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 6D59, 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 October 25, 1999, 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 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 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: 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 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire, 
Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 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 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 19, 1999, 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 20th day of September, 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
M. Christopher Nolan,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV & Decommissioning, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-24897 Filed 9-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P