[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73080-73082]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33777]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 or NRC) 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.b, ``Steam Generator Tubing Surveillance--Acceptance Criteria,'' 
to allow tube 110/60 to remain inservice through the current operating 
cycle (Cycle 16) with two axial indications that have potential through 
wall depths greater than the plugging limit. The axial indications are 
located in the roll transition region and are contained within the 
upper tubesheet.
    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 
inability of ANO-1 to fully comply with TS 4.18.5.b. With ANO-1 
operating at 100 percent power, members of the licensee's technical 
staff generated a condition report (CR) that questioned the integrity 
of an individual steam generator tube that was currently inservice in 
the ``A'' steam generator. This CR documented that during a review of 
eddy current data taken during the last refueling outage, it was 
identified that steam generator tube 110/60 contained two axial 
indications in the upper roll transition area that exceeded the tube 
plugging limit. However, the licensee failed to repair this tube 
through means of either rerolling or plugging. TS 4.18.5.b indicates 
that the steam generator shall be demonstrated operable following a 
steam generator inspection after completing repair activities for all 
tubes that have indications that exceed the plugging limit. As a 
result, the ``A'' steam generator was considered inoperable due to the 
failure to take action after completion of the surveillance and TS 
3.1.1.2, ``Reactor Coolant System--Steam Generators'' was entered. This 
TS has no associated required action for an inoperable steam generator. 
Therefore, TS Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) 3.0.3 was entered, 
as appropriate, to address this condition. TS LCO 3.0.3 requires, 
within one hour, that action be taken to place the unit in an operating 
condition in which the TS does not apply through the initiation of a 
plant shutdown.
    Based on the circumstances described above, the NRC verbally issued 
a Notice of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) on December 15, 1999. The 
NOED was documented by letter dated December 17, 1999. The NOED 
expressed the NRC's intention to exercise discretion not to enforce 
compliance with TS LCO 3.0.3 and TS 3.1.1.2 until the NRC staff acts on 
the licensee's exigent TS amendment request to revise TS 4.18.5.b with 
a footnote to address continued operation during the remainder of this 
fuel cycle with tube 110/60 inservice. The licensee submitted the 
exigent TS amendment request on December 16, 1999.
    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

[[Page 73081]]

(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.
    The OTSGs [Once Through Steam Generators] are used to remove 
heat from the reactor coolant system (RCS) during normal operation 
and during accident conditions. The OTSG tubing forms a substantial 
portion of the reactor coolant pressure boundary. An OTSG tube 
failure is a violation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary and 
is a specific accident analyzed in the ANO-1 Safety Analysis Report 
(SAR).
    The purpose of the periodic surveillance performed on the OTSGs 
in accordance with ANO-1 Technical Specification 4.18 is to ensure 
that the structural integrity of this portion of the RCS will be 
maintained. The technical specification plugging limit of 40% of the 
nominal tube wall thickness requires tubes to be repaired or removed 
from service because the tube may become unserviceable prior to the 
next inspection. Unserviceable is defined in the technical 
specifications as the condition of a tube if it leaks or contains a 
defect large enough to affect its structural integrity in the event 
of an operating basis earthquake, a loss-of-coolant accident, or a 
steam line break. Of these accidents, the most sever condition with 
respect to axial cracking in the upper roll transition (URT) of a 
tube within the tubesheet is a main steam line break (MSLB). During 
this event the differential pressure across the tube could be as 
high as 2500 psid [pounds per square inch differential]. The rupture 
of a tube during this event could permit the flow of reactor coolant 
into the secondary system thus bypassing the containment.
    From testing performed on simulated flaws within the tubesheet 
it has been shown that the axial indications within the upper tube 
sheet left in service during cycle 16 do not represent structurally 
significant flaws which would increase probability of a tube failure 
beyond that currently assumed in the ANO-1 SAR.
    Burst tests were conducted on tubing with simulated flaws within 
the tubesheet. In these tests, through-wall holes of varying sizes 
up to 0.5 inch in diameter were drilled in test specimens. The 
flawed specimen tubes were then inserted into a simulated tubesheet 
and pressurized. In all cases the tube burst away from the flaw in 
that portion of the tube that was outside the tubesheet. The size of 
these simulated flaws bound the indications left in service within 
the upper tubesheet during 1R15 [refueling outage following the 
completion of operating cycle 15]. These tests demonstrate for flaws 
similar to the axial indications in the ANO-1 upper tubesheet that 
the tubes will not fail at this location under accident conditions.
    The dose consequences of a MSLB accident are analyzed in the 
ANO-1 accident analysis. This analysis assumes a 1 gpm [gallon per 
minute] OTSG tube leak and that the unit has been operating with 1% 
defective fuel. The postulated accident induced leak rate 
contribution at the end of cycle from these indications is 
negligible.
    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 OTSGs are passive components. The intent of the technical 
specification surveillance requirements is being met by this change 
in that adequate structural and leakage integrity will be 
maintained. The proposed change introduces no new modes of plant 
operation.
    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 ANO-1 Technical Specification Bases specify that the 
surveillance requirements (which includes the plugging limit) are to 
ensure the structural integrity of this portion of the RCS pressure 
boundary. The technical specification plugging limit of 40% of the 
nominal tube wall thickness requires tubes to be repaired or removed 
from service because the tube may become unserviceable prior to the 
next inspection. Unserviceable is defined in the technical 
specifications as the condition of a tube if it leaks or contains a 
defect large enough to affect its structural integrity in the event 
of an operating basis earthquake, a loss-of-coolant accident, or a 
MSLB. Of these accidents the most severe condition with respect to 
flaws within the tubesheet is the MSLB.
    Testing of simulated through wall flaws of up to 0.5 inch in 
diameter within a tubesheet showed that the tubes always failed 
outside of the tubesheet. Thus the structural requirement of the 
bases of the surveillance specification is satisfied.
    Leakage under accident conditions would be limited due to the 
small size of the flaws and would be low enough to ensure offsite 
dose limits are not exceeded.
    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 
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 January 12, 2000, 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 accessible 
electronically through ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the 
NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov). 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

[[Page 73082]]

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 December 16, 1999, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible 
electronically through ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the 
NRC Web site 
(http://www.nrc.gov).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of December 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. 99-33777 Filed 12-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P