Indiana Michigan Power Co.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Docket No. 50-315]

Indiana Michigan Power Co.; 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.

DPR-58, issued to Indiana Michigan Power Company (the licensee), for

operation of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in

Berrien County, Michigan.

The proposed amendment would modify technical specifications

4.4.5.4 and 4.4.5.5, on steam generators, to allow for repair of hybrid

expansion joint sleeves under redefined repair boundary limits.

The licensee requested this change on an exigent basis because: (1)

The change is associated with steam generator tube repairs during the

Unit 1 refueling outage currently in progress, and (2) the empirical

data compiled from the Kewaunee Nuclear Plant steam generator tube

pulls in March 1995 is the primary support for this amendment and the

final implications and conclusions from assessment of that data are

just now being formulated. The Unit 1 tube repairs are currently

scheduled to begin on August 29, 1995.

The NRC staff has reviewed and concurred with the licensee's

reasons for requesting this amendment on an exigent basis.

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 CNP [Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant] unit 1

in accordance with the proposed license amendment does not involve a

significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

Mechanical testing has shown that the inherent structural

strength of the HEJ [hybrid expansion joint] provides sufficient

integrity such that the tube rupture capability recommendations of

RG [Regulatory Guide] 1.121 are met, even for instances of 100%

throughwall, 360 deg. circumferentially oriented degradation in the

HEJ hardroll lower transition region. Structural integrity

recommendations consistent with RG 1.121 are supplied for all tube

degradation 1.1 inch or greater below the bottom of the HEJ hardroll

upper transition. Based on test data, a bounding SLB [steam line

break] leak rate of 0.033 gpm for indications between 1.1 and 1.3

inch below the bottom of the hardroll upper transition is applied.

As the leakage data base is expanded and statistical basis

established, this SLB leakage allowance may be reduced. For

indications existing greater than 1.3 inch below the bottom of the

hardroll upper transition, SLB event leakage can be neglected.

Additional prevention from tube rupture is inherently provided

by the HEJ geometry. For RCS [reactor coolant system] release rates

to exceed the normal makeup capacity of the plant, approximately 120

gpm, the tube must be postulated to experience a complete

circumferential separation at the lower transition, and become

axially displaced by 3 to 3.25 inches, resulting in complete

geometric disassociation between the tube and sleeve resulting in

sufficient flow area to support leakage of 120 gpm. During the 1989

plug top release event at North Anna unit 1, primary to secondary

release rates were calculated to be less than 80 gpm, for a flow

area approximately 4 times larger than the flow area created by a

tube which has axially displaced by about 1.25 to 1.5 inch. Analysis

of the steam generator indicates that at a 95% cumulative

probability, the tube would experience an axial displacement of less

than the 1.1 inch boundary. At this level of axial displacement, a

ring of metal to metal contact would remain between the tube and

sleeve, and leakage would be far less than 120 gpm. Projected

leakage at this point is expected to be less than 2.5 gpm.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed repair boundary will not

result in tube rupture, even for a tube postulated to not behave as

predicted by the available test and pulled tube data.

The proposed technical specification change to support the

implementation of the HEJ sleeve tube repair boundary for parent

tube degradation in the HEJ hardroll lower transition region does

not adversely impact any other previously evaluated design basis

accident or the results of accident analyses for the current

technical specification minimum reactor coolant system flow rate.

Plugging limit criteria are established using the guidance of RG

1.121. Furthermore, per RG 1.83 recommendations, the sleeved tube

assembly can be monitored through periodic inspections with present

eddy current techniques.

(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 repair boundary will not introduce

significant or adverse changes to the plant design basis. Mechanical

testing of degraded sleeve joints supports the conclusions of the

calculations that the sleeve retains structural (tube burst)

capability consistent with RG 1.121. As with [the] initial

installation of sleeves, implementation of the alternate criteria

cannot interact with other portions of the RCS. Any hypothetical

accident as a result of potential tube degradation in the HEJ

hardroll lower transition region of the tube is bounded by the

existing tube rupture accident analysis. Neither the sleeve design

nor implementation of the tube repair boundary defined in Attachment

4 [Westinghouse Electric Corporation Proprietary Report, WCAP-14446]

affects any other component or location of the tube outside of the

immediate area repaired. In addition, as the installation of sleeves

and the impact on current plugging level analyses is accounted for,

any postulation that the alternate repair criteria for parent tube

degradation in the HEJ hardroll lower transition creates a new or

different type of accident is not supported.

(3) The proposed license amendment does not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The safety factors used in the establishment of the HEJ sleeved

tube alternate repair boundary for the disposition of indications in

the hardroll lower transition of potentially degraded parent tubes

are consistent with the safety factors in the ASME Boiler and

Pressure Vessel Code used in steam generator design. Based on the

sleeved tube geometry, it is unrealistic to consider that

application of the repair boundary could result in single tube leak

[[Page 41905]]

rates exceeding the normal makeup capacity during normal operating

conditions. The repair boundary established in Attachment 4 has been

developed using the methodology of RG 1.121. The performance

characteristics of postulated degraded parent tubes of HEJ tube/

sleeve joints have been verified by testing to retain structural

integrity and preclude significant leakage during normal and

postulated accident conditions. Testing indicates that postulated

circumferentially separated tubes which the repair boundary

addresses would not experience axial displacement during either

normal operation or SLB conditions. The existing offsite dose

evaluation performed for CNP unit 1 in support of the voltage based

plugging criteria for axial ODSCC [outside diameter stress corrosion

cracking] at TSP [tube support plate] intersections established a

faulted loop primary to secondary leak rate of 12.6 gpm using

technical specification dose equivalent Iodine-131 activity levels.

Following implementation of the criteria, postulated leakage from

all sources must not exceed 12.6 gpm in the faulted loop.

Maintenance of this limit will ensure that offsite doses would not

exceed the currently accepted limit of 10% of the 10 CFR [Part] 100

guidelines. The repair boundary uses a conservatively established

``per indication'' leak rate for estimation of SLB leakage. This

leak rate is applied to all indications left in service as a result

of the tube repair boundary, including non-throughwall indications

and a limited number of indications of circumferential throughwall

extent.

For a postulated indication whose performance is not

characteristic of the test and pulled tube data, and which would

experience axial displacement at the 95% cumulative probability

value following a postulated SLB event with no operator

intervention, leakage would not be expected to result in an

uncontrolled release of reactor coolant in excess of normal makeup

capacity.

For the three pulled tubes and nearly 1,000 crack indications

detected in the field, there were no instances of degradation of

elevations, (multiple expansion transitions) on either side of the

hardroll expansion in the same tube. This includes no instances of

non-detected degradation in the upper hydraulic and hardroll upper

expansion transitions for the pulled tubes. One tube was identified

in the most recent Kewaunee inspection with two separate

circumferential crack elevations within the hardroll lower

transition. Rapidly occurring degradation would not be expected at

the upper transitions, based partly on the field inspection results.

The available inspection results include two inspection programs

(1994 and 1995) at Kewaunee and one at Point Beach unit 2 (1994).

Through these three inspection programs, approximately 11,000 HEJ

sleeved tubes have been inspected using advanced probes.

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 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 August 29, 1995, 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library,

500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085. 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 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

[[Page 41906]]

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 John N. Hannon: 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 Gerald Charnoff,

Esq., Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, 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 August 4, 1995, 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 Maud Preston Palenske Memorial Library,

500 Market Street, St. Joseph, Michigan 49085.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August 1995.

For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tae Kim,

Project Manager, Project Directorate III-1, Division of Reactor

Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-20112 Filed 8-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P