[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26936-26938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13385]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499]


Houston Lighting & Power Company, City Public Service Board of 
San Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas; 
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 Nos. 
NPF-76 and NPF-80 issued to Houston Lighting & Power Company, et. al., 
(the licensee) for operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Matagorda County, Texas.
    The proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 
Section 3/4.4.5, Steam Generators, 3/4.4.6, Reactor Coolant System 
Leakage, and associate Bases to allow the installation of tube sleeves 
as an alternative to plugging to repair defective 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.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination 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. Does the change involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
    The laser welded sleeve has been designed and analyzed in 
accordance with the requirements of the ASME [American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers] Code. The applied stresses and fatigue usage for 
the sleeve are bounded by the limits established in the ASME Code. ASME 
Code minimum material property values are used for the structural and 
plugging limit analysis. Ultrasonic inspection is used to verify that 
minimum weld fusion zone thicknesses are produced. Mechanical testing 
has shown that the structural strength of Alloy 690 laser welded 
sleeves, under normal, upset, and faulted conditions provides margin to 
the acceptance limits. Leakage testing for \3/4\-inch and\7/8\-inch 
tube sleeves has demonstrated no unacceptable levels of primary-to-
secondary leakage are expected during any plant condition, including 
the case where the seal weld is not produced in the lower joint of the 
tubesheet.
    The sleeve nominal wall thickness (used for developing the depth-
based plugging limit for the sleeve) is determined using the guidance 
of Regulatory Guide 1.121 and the pressure stress equation of Section 
III of the ASME Code. The limiting requirement of Regulatory Guide 
1.121, which applies to part throughwall degradation, is the minimum 
acceptable wall to maintain a factor of safety of three against tube 
failure under normal operating (design) conditions. A bounding set of 
design and transient loading input conditions was used for the minimum 
wall thickness evaluation in the generic evaluation. Evaluation of the 
minimum acceptable wall thickness for normal, upset, and postulated 
accident condition loading per the ASME Code indicates these conditions 
are bounded by the design condition required minimum wall thickness.
    A bounding tube wall degradation growth rate per cycle and an eddy 
current uncertainty has been assumed for determining the sleeve 
Technical Specification plugging limit. The sleeve wall degradation 
extent determined by eddy current, which would require plugging sleeved 
tubes, is developed using the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.121 and is 
defined in Westinghouse Letter Report NSD-JLH-6146 to be 42% 
throughwall. Conservatively, South Texas will plug 40% sleeve wall 
degradation as determined by eddy current.
    The effect of sleeving and plugging will remain below the plugging 
limit assumed in [the] Chapter 15 accident analysis of the South Texas 
Project Safety Analysis Report. The proposed change will not increase 
the consequences of these accidents.
    The results of the analyses and testing demonstrate the laser 
welded sleeve is an acceptable means of maintaining tube integrity. 
Further, per Regulatory Guide 1.83 recommendations, the sleeved tube 
can be monitored through periodic inspections with present non-
destructive examination techniques.

[[Page 26937]]

These measures demonstrate installation of sleeves spanning degraded 
areas of the tube will restore the tube to a condition consistent with 
its original design basis.
    Conformance of the sleeve design with the applicable sections of 
the ASME Code and results of the leakage and mechanical tests, support 
the conclusion that installation of laser welded sleeves does not 
increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated.
    2. Does the change create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
    Sleeving will not adversely affect any plant component. Stress and 
fatigue analysis of the repair has shown the ASME Code and Regulatory 
Guide 1.121 criteria are not exceeded. Implementation of laser welded 
sleeving maintains overall tube bundle structural and leakage integrity 
at a level consistent with that of the original tubing during all plant 
conditions. Leak and mechanical testing of sleeves support the 
conclusions of the calculations that each sleeve joint retains both 
structural and leakage integrity during all conditions. Sleeving of 
tubes does not provide a mechanism resulting in an accident outside of 
the area affected by the sleeves. Any accident as a result of potential 
tube or sleeve degradation in the repaired portion of the tube is 
bounded by the existing tube rupture accident analysis.
    Implementation of laser welded sleeving will reduce the potential 
for primary-to-secondary leakage during a postulated steam line break 
while not significantly impacting available primary coolant flow area 
in the event of a LOCA [loss of coolant accident]. By effectively 
isolating degraded areas of the tube through repair, the potential for 
steam line break leakage is reduced. These degraded intersections are 
returned to a condition consistent with the Design Basis. While the 
installation of a sleeve reduces primary coolant flow, the reduction is 
far below that caused by plugging. Therefore, far greater primary 
coolant flow area is maintained through sleeving versus plugging.
    Therefore, the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated is not created.
    3. Does the change involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety?
    The laser welded sleeve repair of degraded steam generator tubes 
has shown by analysis to restore the integrity of the tube bundle 
consistent with its original design basis condition (i.e., tube/sleeve 
operational and faulted condition stresses are bounded by the ASME Code 
requirements and the repaired tubes are essentially leaktight). The 
safety factors used in the design of the sleeves for the repair of 
degraded tubes are consistent with the safety factors in the ASME Code 
used in steam generator design. The portions of the installed sleeve 
assembly which represent the reactor coolant pressure boundary can be 
monitored for the initiation and progression of sleeve/tube wall 
degradation, thus satisfying the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.83. 
The portion of the tube bridged by the sleeve is effectively removed 
from the pressure boundary, and the sleeve then forms the new pressure 
boundary. The areas of the sleeved tube assembly which require 
inspection are defined in WCAP-13698, Revision 2 and Westinghouse 
Letter Report NSD-JLH-6146.
    The effect of sleeving and plugging will remain below the plugging 
limit assumed in [the] Chapter 15 accident analysis of the South Texas 
Project Safety Analysis. The change will not reduce the margin of 
safety for these accidents.
    Provisional requirements cited in other Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Safety Evaluation Reports addressing the implementation of 
sleeving have required the reduction of the individual steam generator 
normal operation primary-to-secondary leakage limit from 500 to 150 gpd 
[gallons per day]. Consistent with these evaluations, the South Texas 
Project will reduce the per steam generator leak rate limit of 500 gpd 
in Technical Specification 3.4.6.2.c to 150 gpd. The establishment of 
this leakage limit at 150 gpd provides additional safety margin.
    Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed license amendment 
request does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of 
safety as defined in the South Texas Project Final Safety Analysis 
Report or 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 30 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 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 derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-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 and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after 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 20555-0001, 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 June 28, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J.M. Hodges 
Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX. If a request for a 
hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed

[[Page 26938]]

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 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 basis 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 a hearing is requested, the Commission will 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, 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: 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 W. D. Beckner: 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 20555-0001, and to Jack 
R. Newman, Esq., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036-5869, 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 May 17, 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 Wharton County Junior College, J. M. 
Hodges Learning Center, 911 Boling Highway, Wharton, TX.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of May 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Janet L. Kennedy,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-13385 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P