26936 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Notices

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub.

L. 92–463, as amended, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

announces a forthcoming meeting of the

NASA Advisory Council, Life and

Microgravity Sciences and Application

Advisory Committee, Space Station

Utilization Advisory Subcommittee.

DATES: June 24, 1996, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.;

June 25, 1996, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; June 26,

1996, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; June 27, 1996,

8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; June 28, 1996, 8 a.m.

to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institute Quissett Campus, Clark Lab,

Fifth Floor, Room 507, Woods Hole,

MA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Edmond M. Reeves, Code US,

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, Washington, DC, 20546,

202/358–2560.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting will be open to the public up

to the seating capacity of the room.

Advance notice of attendance to the

Executive Secretary is requested. The

agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—Station program update

—Science and technology utilization

research plans and station capability

requirements

—International sub-rack standards

payload interfaces

—International research campaign mode

of operation planning

—Plans for OLMSA advisory committee

reorganization

—Plans for advanced life support

systems

—Other topics related to the scientific,

technologies and commercial

utilization of the space station may be

included in the meeting discussions.

It is imperative that the meeting be

held on these dates to accommodate the

scheduling priorities of the key

participants. Visitors will be requested

to sign a visitor’s register.

Dated: May 21, 1996.

Leslie M. Nolan,

Advisory Committee Management Officer

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–13382 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7510–01–M

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 and7⁄8-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 nondestructive examination techniques.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Notices 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
26938 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Notices

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

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: Weeks of May 27, June 3, 10, and

17, 1996.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of May 27

Thursday, May 30

2:00 p.m.—Briefing on Status of Dry Cask

Storage Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact:

William Travers, 301–415–8500).

Friday, May 31

10:00 a.m.—Briefing on NRC Inspection

Activities (Public Meeting) (Contact: Bill

Borchardt, 301–415–1257).

11:30 a.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

Week of June 3—Tentative

Monday, June 3

10:00 a.m.—Briefing on Part 100 Final Rule

on Reactor Site Criteria (Public Meeting)

(Contact: Charles Ader, 301–415–5622).

Thursday, June 6

3:30 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).

Week of June 10—Tentative

Tuesday, June 11

3:30 p.m.—Affirmation Session (Public

Meeting) (if needed).