19092 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices

Room: 415.

Program: This meeting will review

applications for the Seminars and

Institute Program in Literature, Culture

& Arts submitted to the Division of

Research and Education Programs, for

projects at the March 1, 1996 deadline.

16. Date: May 22.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 317.

Program: This meeting will review

applications for the Education

Development and Demonstration

Program in Teaching Technology,

Special Opportunity submitted to the

Division of Research and Education

Programs, for projects with April 5,

1996 deadlines.

17. Date: May 24.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 317.

Program: This meeting will review

applications for the Education

Development and Demonstration

Program in Teaching Technology,

Special Opportunity submitted to the

Division of Research and Education

Programs, for projects with April 5,

1996 deadlines.

18. Date: May 29.

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Room: 317.

Program: This meeting will review

applications for the Education

Development and Demonstration

Program in Teaching Technology,

Special Opportunity submitted to the

Division of Research and Education

Programs, for projects with April 5,

1996 deadlines.

Michael S. Shapiro,

Acting, Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–10655 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7536–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–364]

Southern Nuclear Operating Company,

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. NPF–

8 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating

Company, Inc. (the licensee) for

operation of the Joseph M. Farley

Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, located in

Houston County, Alabama.

The proposed amendment would

modify Technical Specification 3/4.4.6,

‘‘Steam Generator Surveillance

Requirements,’’ which provides tube

inspection requirements and acceptance

criteria to determine the level of

degradation for which a tube may

remain in service. The proposed

amendment would add definitions

required for the L*-type criteria and

prescribe the portion of the tube subject

to those criteria.

This requested Technical

Specification (TS) change is a followup

to a Notice of Enforcement Discretion

(NOED) granted to the licensee that is in

effect from the time of issuance on April

23, 1996, until approval of this exigent

TS. NRC Inspection Manual, Part 9900,

‘‘Operations—Notices of Enforcement

Discretion,’’ requires that a followup TS

amendment be issued within 4 weeks

from the issuance of the NOED.

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:

1. Operation of the Farley Nuclear Plant

Unit steam generators in accordance with the

proposed license amendment does not

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an accident

previously evaluated.

The supporting technical evaluations of the

subject criteria demonstrate that the presence

of the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity

in the region of the hardroll by precluding

tube deformation beyond its initial expanded

outside diameter. The resistance to both tube

rupture and tube collapse is strengthened by

the presence of the tubesheet in that region.

The result of the hardroll of the tube into the

tubesheet is an interference fit between the

tube and the tubesheet. Tube rupture

[cannot] occur because the contact between

the tube and tubesheet does not permit

sufficient movement of tube material. In a

similar manner, the tubesheet does not

permit sufficient movement of tube material

to permit buckling collapse of the tube

during postulated LOCA [loss-of-coolant

accident] loadings.

The type of degradation for which the L*

criterion has been developed (cracking with

an axial or near axial orientation) has been

found not to significantly reduce the axial

strength of a tube. An evaluation including

analysis and testing has been done to

determine the strength reduction for axial

loads with simulated axial and near axial

cracks. This evaluation provides the basis for

the acceptance criteria for tube degradation

subject to the L* criterion.

The SRE [sound roll expansion] L* length

is sufficient to preclude significant leakage

from tube degradation located below the L*

length. The existing Technical Specification

leak rate requirements and accident analysis

assumptions remain unchanged in the

unlikely event that significant leakage from

this region does occur. Any leakage from the

tube within the tube sheet at any elevation

in the tubesheet is fully bounded by the

existing steam generator tube analysis

included in the Farley Nuclear Plant Final

Safety Analysis Report. A conservative

leakage allowance for each L* tube is

provided to determine the impact of L*

criterion upon offsite doses in the event of a

postulated double ended guillotine break of

the main steam line outside of containment,

but upstream of the main steam line isolation

valves. Since Farley Unit 2 has implemented

the Interim Plugging Criteria (IPC) for ODSCC

[outside diameter stress corrosion cracking]

at the tube support plates, projected steam

line break (SLB) leakage at the end of the

next successive operating cycle must be

evaluated. Per Generic Letter 95–05, plants

implementing the IPC can utilize SLB leakage

limits higher than the originally assumed 1.0

gpm primary to secondary leakage value

provided an analysis of offsite doses

consistent with Standard Review Plan

methodology is performed. This analysis

performed for the Farley Unit plant indicates

that primary to secondary leakage of 11.2

gpm in the faulted loop (0.1 gpm in the intact

loops) will result in offsite doses at the site

boundary of less than 10% of the 10 CFR

[Part] 100 guidelines. The total projected SLB

leakage from all leakage sources must remain

below this value. [Per Westinghouse analysis]

addressing the L* methodology, the number

of tube ends to which L* criterion can be

applied is limited to 600 per steam generator.

Using a bounding SLB leakage allowance per

L* tube, the SLB leakage component from

600 L* tube ends will be less than 0.33 gpm

in the faulted loop. The proposed L*

criterion does not adversely impact any other

previously evaluated design basis accident.

As the current Unit 2 IPC SLB leakage has

been calculated to be less than 2 gpm in the

faulted loop, [an] SLB leakage margin of over

9 gpm is provided for this cycle.

As noted above, tube rupture and pullout

is not expected for tubes using the L*

criterion. In addition to the L* length, a

minimum length of SRE below the identified

degradation must be established. The

aggregate L* distance of SRE provides the

structural integrity to prevent tube pullout.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices 19093

Conservatively, it is assumed that the

degraded band length does not provide any

support in resisting tube pullout.

Therefore SNC [Southern Nuclear

Company] concludes that Operation of the

Farley Nuclear Plant Unit steam generators in

accordance with the proposed license

amendment does not involve a significant

increase in the probability or consequences

of an accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed license amendment does

not create the possibility of a new or different

kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

Implementation of the proposed L*

criterion does not introduce any significant

changes to the plant design basis. Use of the

criterion does not provide a mechanism to

result in an accident initiated outside of the

region of the tubesheet expansion. The

structural integrity of L* tube will be

maintained during all plant conditions. Any

hypothetical accident as a result of any tube

degradation in the expanded portion of the

tube would be bounded by the existing tube

rupture accident analysis. If it is postulated

that a circumferential separation of an L*

tube were to occur below the PLRL [pullout

load reaction length], tube structural and

leakage integrity will be maintained during

all plant conditions.

Verification of the L* distance of nondegraded tube roll expansion prevents the

postulated separated tube from lifting out of

the tubesheet during all plant conditions.

Verification of the L* criterion prevents tube

displacement of any magnitude, and

therefore, postulated axial cracks existing a

minimum of 0.5 inch from either the bottom

of the roll transition or top of tubesheet,

whichever is lower, from migrating out of the

tubesheet.

Therefore, SNC concludes that the

proposed license amendment does not create

the possibility of a new or different kind of

accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

3. The proposed license amendment does

not involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety.

The use of the L* criterion has been

concluded to maintain the integrity of the

tube bundle commensurate with the

requirements of draft Regulatory Guide 1.121

under normal and postulated accident

conditions. The safety factors used in the

verification of the strength of the degraded

tube are consistent with the safety factors in

the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

used in steam generator design. The L*

length has been verified by testing to be

greater than the length of roll expansion

required to preclude significant leakage

during normal and postulated accident

conditions. The leak testing acceptance

criteria are based on the primary to

secondary leakage limit in Technical

Specifications and the leakage assumptions

used in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis

Report] accident analyses. The L* distance

provides for structural integrity during all

plant conditions.

Implementation of the L* criterion will

decrease the number of tubes which must be

taken out of service with tube plugs or

repaired with sleeves. Both plugs and sleeves

reduce the RCS [reactor coolant system] flow

margin, thus implementation of the L*

criterion will maintain the margin of flow

that would otherwise be reduced in the event

of increased plugging or sleeving.

Therefore, SNC, concludes based on the

above, it is concluded that the proposed

change does not result in a significant

reduction in a loss of margin with respect to

plant safety as defined in the Final Safety

Analysis Report or the bases of the FNP

[Farley Nuclear Plant] technical

specifications.

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 15 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 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, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

15- 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 Rules Review and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, 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 May 30, 1996, 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 HoustonLove Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama. 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
19094 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices

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, Attention:

Docketing and Services Branch, or may

be delivered to the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by

the above date. Where petitions are filed

during the last 10 days of the notice

period, it is requested that the petitioner

promptly so inform the Commission by

a toll-free telephone call to Western

Union at 1–(800) 248–5100 (in Missouri

1–(800) 342–6700). The Western Union

operator should be given Datagram

Identification Number N1023 and the

following message addressed to Herbert

N. Berkow: petitioner’s name and

telephone 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 sent to the Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, and to M. Stanford Blanton,

Esq., Balch and Bingham, Post Office

Box 306, 1710 Sixth Avenue North,

Birmingham, Alabama, 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 April 23, 1996, 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

Houston-Love Memorial Library, 212 W.

Burdeshaw Street, Post Office Box 1369,

Dothan, Alabama.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day

of April 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Byron L. Siegel,

Project Manager, Project Directorate II–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96–10618 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

The Nuclear Safety Research Review

Committee (NSRRC) will hold its next

meeting on June 27–28, 1996. The

location of the meeting will be in rooms

1F7/9, One White Flint North (OWFN)

Building, 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD.

The meeting will be held in

accordance with the requirements of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA) and will be open to the public.

The NSRRC provides advice to the

Director of the Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research (RES) on matters of

overall management importance in the

direction of the NRC’s program of

nuclear safety research. The main

purposes of this meeting will be (1) to

discuss the March 27, 1996 NSRRC

briefing with the Commission and (2) to

review and discuss the reports and

recommendations of the Subcommittees

on Research in Support of Risk-Based

Regulation (PRA); Instrumentation and

Control (I&C) and Human Factors; and

Subcommittee on Accident Analysis.

Participants in parts of the discussion

will include senior NRC staff and other

RES technical staff as necessary.

Any inquiries regarding this notice or

any subsequent changes in the status

and schedule of the meeting, may be

made to the Designated Federal Officer,

Dr. Jose Luis M. Cortez (telephone: 301–

415–6596), between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00

p.m.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day

of April, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates,

Federal Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–10621 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Planning and Procedures; Notice of

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning

and Procedures will hold a meeting on

May 22, 1996, Room T–2B1, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance, with the exception of

a portion that may be closed pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss

organizational and personnel matters

that relate solely to internal personnel

rules and practices of ACRS, and

matters the release of which would

constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy.

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows:

Wednesday, May 22, 1996—1:30 p.m.

until 4:00 p.m.

The Subcommittee will discuss

proposed ACRS activities and related

matters. It may also discuss the status of

appointment of members to the ACRS.