ML20203B866
| ML20203B866 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Arkansas Nuclear  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1998 |
| From: | William Reckley NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203B869 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9802240433 | |
| Download: ML20203B866 (7) | |
Text
7590 01oP UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENTERGY OPERATIONS. INCL DOCKET NO. 50 36d I h N_OTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE. PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARQ1 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 ti1 issued to Entergy Operations, Inc.,
(the licensee)Ior operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No.1 IANO 1), located in Pope County, Arkansas.
The proposed amendment would allow the use of the repair roll technology (reroll) for trie upper tubesheet region of the ANO 1 steam generatbrs. The reroll technology is proposed as an attemative to the existing technical specification requirements to either sleeve or plug steam generator tubes found during inservice inspections to have defects that oxceed the stated repair criteria. The reroll process has been developed to repair tut ^= with flaws in the tubesheet region by creating a new mechanical tube to tubesheet structural joint below the tube d'efect 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 D 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 probabilit-sr consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 9802240433 900210 PDR ADOCK 05000313 P
2 accident from any socident prsviously evaluated; or (3) Involve a significant reduction in a mar 0 n i
of safety. As requirtd by 10 CFR 50.g1(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
1, Dess Not involve a Significant Ir. crease in the Probability or Consequences of an Accident Previously Evaluated.
The reroll process utilizes the original tube configuration and extends the mil expanded region. Thus all of the design and operating characteristics of the steam generator and connected systerr.s are preserved. The rerolijoint length has been analyzed and tested for design, operating, and faulted condition loading.
The qualification of the rerolljoint is based on establishing a mechanical rolllength which will carry all of the structuralloads 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 oddy current measurement uncertalnty.
The analyses evaluated plant operating and faulted loads in addition to tubesheet bow effects. Testing and analysis ev ' wied the tube springback and radial contact stresses due to temperature, pressure, ana 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 hts been previously analyzed. The potential for a tube rupture is not increased b' the use of the reroll process.
y 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 me new pressure boundary joint would be well below the Technical Specification limits. Since the norma 1 and faulted leak rates are well within the Technical Specification limitt, the analyzed accident scenarios are still bot.nding.
App'ying 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 structuralintegrity of the tube or tubesheet. A tube that is rerolled deto 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 concem, 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 Frematome 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 Previousty Evaluated.
3 The reroll process eatablishes 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 oracking has shown that PWSCC in roll transitions are normally short axial orooks, with extremely low leak rates. The standard MRPC eddy J
current inspection during the refueling outages have proven to be successfulin detecting these defects earty enough in their progression to facilitate repair.
in the unlikely event the torolled tube failed and severed completely at the transition of the reroll region, the tube would retain engagement in the tubesheet boro, preventing any interaction with neighboring tubes. In this case, leakage is minimized and is well within the assumed leakage of the design besls 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 i
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 chabge 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.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.g2(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 determinatk n.
Normally, the Commissloa 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 dorating or shutdown of the facility, the er v --
cy-,'-
.,e,-.n-.,
,w.,%,,,m.-,.a.,--...
..gi--e-w-----*-
e - -
ei-
-es-.-e-es-w=--
w-rw-wemvm--r--
- --m-m-
4 Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, prov!ded 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 allerissuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulea 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 !ssuance 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, ine Gelman Building,2120 L titreet, NW., Washingion, 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,
5 the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board willissue 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 mplain the toasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factru.4. (1) the nature of the petitionefs right under the Act to be mado party to the pwnntouj, (2) the nature and extent of the petitioners property, financial, or other intemst on th 3 p#ecce<litig, urul (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proccoitS na tha petiliMer% interest.
J The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s,) of the subject inwt.n of tho procording as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any porson who he h1 a pal ti m fer ten to tofervene or who has been admitted as a party may amenii the paira +6.mt wriueshog two of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing enof auom u hAI.nl in the procoeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specifinty imieh enmot s d%a+ed above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing confere'.schedutad in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the p% tion to intervene which mual include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter Each contocUon must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fxt to bn niwd rs, controvmicd in addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention und a concise statement of the a!!eged facts or expert opinion which suppoil 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
~.
6 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 materialissue of law or fact. Contentions shall be 1,,nited 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 falls to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at le'ast 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 wil,I 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. ony hearing hold 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 2C555-0001, 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.
i
o 07-A copy of the petition should also be sont to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001, and to Mr. Nkholas S. Reynolds, Winston & Strewn,1400 L Streat, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005-3502, attomey for the licensee.
7 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 l
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)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
l For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated February 9,1998, which is avallatste 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, A ansas Tech University, Russellville, Arkansas.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of February 1998.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
\\
William D. Reckley, Senior Projo ager Project Directorate IV 1 Division of Reactor Projects lil/IV Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation