ML20012C802
| ML20012C802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1990 |
| From: | Wang A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C803 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003230249 | |
| Download: ML20012C802 (9) | |
Text
__ _ _ _ _
l j
s.
7590-01 i
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0m!$510N i
i GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION DOCKET'NO. 50-289 NOTICE OF CON $1 DERAT 10N OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY CPEP.ATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to facility Operating License No. DPR-50, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation (the licensee), for operation of Three Mile Island, Unit 1 located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
By application dated March 12, 1990, the licensee requested that the Technical Specification (TS) requirements governing inservice inspection of the Once Thrcugh Steam Generators (OTSGs) be amended. Specifically, the licensee requested modification to the eddy current testing (ECT) required following excessive primary-to-secondary leakage in tubes located in the area of the OTSG defined as the " lane wedge" area. This area is described as the tubes in rows 73 through 79 adjacent to the open inspection lane, and tubes between and on lines drawn from tube 66-l'to tube 75-15 and from 86-1 l
and 77-15. The present TS do not make a distinction for tubes located in this ares. However, operating experience for OTSGs has indicated that tubes in these areas are more subject.to certain types of failures, including en-vironmentally assisted high cycle fatigue (HCF) failures, than tubes located l
elsewhere in the OTSG. Of approximately 16,000 tubes in the OTSG, 419 are located in the lane wedge area. The present TS, following a tube leak,
.$DR00323o249 9oo32o p
ADOCK 050002e9 PDC
.s..
/
j i
' i s
requires a 6% randomly selected sample (approximately 950 tubes) which would not necessarily include more than about 25 tubes in the lane wedge area. Because of the history of failures of lane wedge tubes et other Babcock and Wilcox plants, the licensee proposes concentrating ECT inspec-i f
tions in this area following failure in the upper portion of a lane wedge tube.
l The licensee's application is consistent with a TS amendment issued by the fRC in 1981 for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3.
It is also consistent with guidelines recently issued by the Electric Power Research Institute but not yet fully endorsed by the NRC. The application for a TS amendment was re-quested by the I;RC staff following a lane wedge tube leak at TNI-1 on flarch 6, 1990. The staff is issuing this notice and reviewing the 1icensee's application under exigent circumstances. The staff issued a waiver of com-pliance on llarch 14, 1990 to allow plant restart following leak repairs and while the application is being processed. The post-leak testing performed by l
the licensee following repairs is consistent with what would be required by t
the amended TS.
In addition the licensee conducted two types of visual leak l
checks to ensure only one tube was responsible for primary-to-secondary leakage. The licensee did not request emergency treatment of the amended application; the staff does not believe that an emergency situation exists.
Fowever, the staff does believe that the amendment should be issued promptly.
l Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will t
have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (theAct)andtheCommission'sregulations.
I l
l j
t
. i s I
The Comission must make a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards considerations. Under the Comission's regula-tions in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance l
withtheproposedamendmentwouldnot(1)involveasignificantincreasein 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.
l The licensee has determined that the Technical Specifications Change Request involves no significant hazards considerations as defined in 10 CFR 50.92. That determination is as follows:
l 1.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed amendment limits the unscheduled inservice inspection to the lea king steam generator following arimary-tc-secondary leakage F
thrcugh the steam generator tubes whici exceeded Technical Specifica-tion limits. The proposed amendment also limits this unscheduled inspection to the lane wedge area when the leaking tube is located in this area. The design basis accidents related to this change are eccidents related to steam generator tube integrity. The probability of occurrence or the consequences of a steam generator tube rupture accident, or a main steam line break accident, which assumes a 1 gallon per minute (gpm) primary-to-secondary leak rate, are not increased since adequate assurance of steam generator tube integrity is maintained by the proposed change. Limiting the unscheduled inservice inspection to the affected steam generator has no adverse effect on the adequacy of steam Senerctor tube integrity. Limiting the unscheduled inservice ins >ection to the tubes in the lane wedge area when the leaking tube is in tiis area enhances plant safety by identifying potential additional tubes which may be-experiencing similar wear,further degradation. corrosion, or fatigue. App actions are taken to prevent The proposed change has no effect on the inspection methods or acceptance criteria; nor does it reduce the effectiveness of the overall unscheduled steam generator tube inspection program. Therefore, this change does not increase the probabil-ity of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
t l
I 2.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment I
would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of acci.
dent from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed amendment limits the unscheduled inservice inspection to the leaking steam i
senerator following primary-to-secondary leakage through the steam generator tubes which has exceeded Technical Specification limits.
The proposed amendment also limits the unscheduled inspection to the l
l lane wedge area when the leaking tube is located in this area. The i
proposed change has no affect on the inspection methods, nor does it l
l reduce the effectiveness of the overall unscheduled steam generator l
tube inspection program. The proposed changes are related to steam generator tube integrity and tube rupture accidents only, which have been analyzed previously..Therefore the change has no effect on the possibility of creating a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3.
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed amendment limits the unscheduled inservice inspection to the leaking steam generator following primary-to-secondary leakage i
through the steem generator tubes which exceeded Technical Specifica-tien limits. The proposed amendment also limits the unscheduled inservice inspection to the lane wedge area when the leaking tube is I
located in this area. Adequate assurence of steam generator tube l
integrity is maintained and slant safety is enhanced by identifyin potential additional tubes witch may be experiencing similar wear,g corrosion, or fatigue in the area which is susceptible to such degradation. Appropriate corrective actions are taken te prevent further degradation. Performing a 100% inspection of the lane wedge area tubes following a tube leak in excess of the Technical Specifi-cation limits enhances plant safety by identifying tubes with similar degradation. The preposal has no effect on the inspection methods 1
or acceptance criteria, ner does it reduce the effectiveness of the evert 11 unscheduled steam generator tube inspection program. There-fore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment does not involve a sigificant reduction in a margin of safety.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination analysis and agrees with its conclusion.
Therefore, the staff proposes to determine that the application for amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public coments on this preposed determination.
Any comments received within 15 days after the date of publication of this a
e c.m,.
e av,
~.n..
- -,, -,.. - ~,.
- - ~,,
, ~..,.,
,.v,
a t -
1 notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request f or a hearing.
Written comments way be submitted by mail to the Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services. Office of I
Aduinistration, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, 4
and should cite the publication date and page nunber of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments ray also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building.
7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
The filing of requests for hearing and tetitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By April 23, 1990 the licensee mey file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license end any person whose interest may be affected by this proceed.
ing and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written ree, vest for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Requests for a hearing and petitions 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and at the Local Public Document Room located at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Commonwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
i i
i 1
,--n-
,-r--,
w
+
- - + - - - - -,
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Comission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Comission 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)thenatureofthepetitioner's rightundertheActtobemadeapartytotheproceeding;(2)thenatureand extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; snd (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the procteding 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 fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Notlaterthanfifteen(15)dayspriortothefirstprehearingconference 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
7 of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted.
In addition, the petitiorier 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 ratters within the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief.
A peti-t tiener who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements I
l i
with respect tc at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
)
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to cry limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity te participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, includirt the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If the amendr.ent is issued before the expiration of 30-days, 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 significt.nt hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and rake it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
a 4
m.2 a
-a.m:
,--+
.-.e-s 1
i
~
l.' l l
1 If the final determination is that the amendment request involves signifi.
cant hazards considerations, any hearing held would take place before the issuance l
of any amendment.
Normally, the Comission will not issue the amendment until the expiration j
of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely way would result,' for example, i
in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Comission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided that its 1
final determinatien is that the amendment involves no significant hazards con-sidera tion. The final determination will consider ell public and State comments l
received. Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuar.cc. The Comission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed uith the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, r
Fashington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L l
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed j
during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Comission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)325-6000(inMissouri 1-(800)342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone 1
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 l
-y 9
I i
t ~
sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, and to Ernest L. Blake, Jr.,
Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, 2300 N Street, Washington, D.C.
I 200317, 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 Comission, 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) and2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for arendrent dated March 12, 1990, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.P.,
Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the Local Public Document Room located at the Government Publications Section, State Library of Pennsylvania, Walnut Street and Corconwealth Avenue, Box 1601, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of March 1990.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY Com!SSION Ob W%
Alan B. Wang, Acting Director Project Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
\\
.l.
-,, _ _....