[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31199]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 20, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-219]
GPU Nuclear Corporation; 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-16, issued to GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN/the licensee) for
operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS)
located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.3.1.E
to allow 2645 fuel assemblies to be stored in the fuel pool. This is an
increase of 45 fuel assemblies from the current limit of 2600. The 45
additional storage location currently exist in the racks in the fuel
pool. They were included in the re-racking project allowed by License
Amendment No. 76 but were not incorporated in the Technical
Specifications since, at the time, it was believed they would not be
needed.
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. The operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,
in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
There are no changes in the existing provisions for load
handling in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool associated with the
proposed increase in licensed storage capacity. OCNGS Technical
Specification 5.3.1.B limits the loads carried over the spent fuel
pool to no greater than the weight of one fuel assembly. Therefore,
accidents involving the mispositioning or drop of a fuel assembly
establish the extent of accident probability or consequences. The
Abnormal Positioning of a Fuel Assembly Outside the Storage Rack and
the Dropped Fuel Assembly accident scenarios are addressed as
follows:
a. The probability of occurrence of the above accidents is not
affected by the racks themselves or the stored fuel. Since no
physical changes are being made to the racks, an increase in
licensed storage capacity cannot increase the probability of these
accidents.
b. The consequences of abnormal positioning of a fuel assembly
outside the storage rack were evaluated. Since the storage rack
criticality calculations were made using an infinite array of
storage cells with no neutron leakage, positioning a fuel assembly
outside and adjacent to the actual finite rack can add reactivity,
but would, because of neutron leakage, result in a lower Keff
than the Koo calculated for the infinite array. Thus,
additional stored fuel assemblies will not increase consequences of
this type of accident than those previously evaluated.
c. The consequences of a dropped fuel assembly striking either
the base of the rack or the top of a storage location and the
reactivity effects were also evaluated in the licensing report
supporting Amendment 76. In all cases, the evaluated integrity of
the racks was not exceeded. Also, the dropped fuel assembly did not
constitute a criticality hazard because the infinite multiplication
factor of the fuel storage racks was not materially altered. An
increase in fuel enrichment does not increase consequences since the
GE-9 assemblies' mechanical specifications are bounded by previous
designs and consequences are not dependent on U-235 enrichment.
Thus, since no physical alteration of the storage racks is necessary
to store 45 additional fuel assemblies the consequences of this type
of accident are not increased.
2. The operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, in
accordance with the proposed amendment, will not create the
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
The increase in licensed spent fuel pool storage capacity
involves the addition of 45 fuel assemblies. The increased
structural loading has already been accounted for in the analyses
reviewed by the NRC staff in support of Amendment 76. There are no
physical changes to the fuel pool cooling. These systems are capable
of handling the additional duty originating from the additional
fuel. Criticality accidents or malfunctions also do not change
because the analysis assumes an infinite array of fuel and Boraflex
gaps have been conservatively accounted for. Therefore, there is no
possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than
previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, in
accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The margin of safety, when applied to a storage expansion, needs
to address nuclear criticality, thermal-hydraulic, mechanical,
material and structural adequacy.
Nuclear Criticality
The acceptance criterion for criticality as established in
Technical Specification 5.3.1.A, is that the neutron multiplication
factor shall be less than or equal to 0.95, including all
uncertainties.
Since the increase in licensed capacity to 2,600 storage
locations, the maximum allowable average enrichment was increased
twice. The original analysis was for 3.01% U-235 enrichment fuel
with no credit for Gd203. Subsequent analyses increased
the maximum allowable enrichment to 3.8% and then 4.0% U-235. Both
analyses take credit for Gd203 requiring a minimum of 7
(seven) rods containing 3.0% or more Gd203.
Subsequent to the rack installation, an industry concern was
raised with the discovery of the formation of gaps in Boraflex
panels. The problem of gap formation in the boraflex and its impact
on criticality has been addressed. The criticality analysis was
updated to take into account the presence of gaps, including
projected gap formation is coplanar. The fuel pool Keff for the
4.0% U-235 enriched fuel with at least 7 (seven) Gd203
rods at peak reactivity is 0.9174 and increases to 0.945 with 3.9
inch coplanar gaps in the Boraflex which is below the 0.95 limit.
Oyster Creek maintains a Boraflex surveillance program to ensure the
assumptions used in the analysis remain valid.
Since all criticality analyses were performed with an infinite
lattice, it is valid for a spent fuel pool capacity of 2,645 fuel
assemblies. Therefore, there is no decrease in the margin of safety.
Thermal-Hydraulic
The heat load analysis performed for the expansion to 2600
licensed storage locations considered all 2,645 actual storage
locations filled. Therefore, the initial conclusions are not changed
and no re-analysis is required. The thermal-hydraulic calculations
which used 125 deg. F pool water temperature, have shown that the
cladding temperatures (<219 deg. F) will be well below the local
fuel pool water saturation temperature of approximately 240 deg. F.
The maximum cladding temperatures will be low enough to preclude
nucleate boiling.
Analysis has demonstrated that with an abnormal heat load from
2,732 fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool, the temperature of the
pool will be maintained within the Technical Specification limit to
125 deg. F. Therefore, since this limit will be maintained, other
restrictions such as the temperature differential of the spent fuel
pool liner will also be maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in
the margin of safety from a thermal-hydraulic point of view.
Mechanical and Structural
The additional 45 storage locations were part of the fuel pool
expansion of which only 2,600 fuel assemblies were licensed for
storage. The fuel storage racks are designed to maintain the spent
fuel assemblies in a safe configuration through all environmental
and abnormal loadings, such as an SSE or impact due to spent fuel
assembly drop. Structural and seismic analyses of the racks have
established margins against tilting, deflection or movement to
preclude impact of the racks with each other or with the pool walls.
It is shown that the rack modules will undergo infinitesimal
rotations if seismic excitation 50% over the SSE loading are
imposed. The threshold of kinematic instability is not even
approached.
Analyses performed to arrive at the above conclusions indicate
that margins in all areas of structural concern exist. The racks are
placed in the pool as individual stand-alone structures, do not load
pool walls directly, and are uncoupled from pool liner temperature
rise.
To limit the out-of-phase motion of adjacent racks due to non-
symmetric loading of the racks, Oyster Creek procedures for loading
spent fuel pool racks require the racks to be loaded symmetrically,
i.e. the total fuel assemblies stored in any one quadrant of a rack
will not deviate by more than 10% of the average of the four
quadrants. This limitation will remain in effect for storage of
2,645 fuel assemblies.
In summary, the additional 45 fuel bundles in storage will not
decrease structural margins since there is no associated physical
change to the storage facility and the 2,645 fuel assemblies were
considered in the original analysis which demonstrated that the
acceptance criteria were met.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appear 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, 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 January 19, 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 Ocean County Library, Reference
Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey 08753. 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 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.
No 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 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, 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 Phillip F. McKee: 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 Ernest L. Blake,
Jr., Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & 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).
The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on
an application for a license amendment falling within the scope of
section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), 42 U.S.C.
10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the Commission, at the request of
any party to the proceeding must use hybrid hearing procedures with
respect to ``any matter which the Commission determines to be in
controversy among the parties.'' The hybrid procedures in section 134
provide for oral argument on matters in controversy, proceeded by
discovery under the Commission's rules, and the designation, following
argument, of only those factual issues that involve a genuine and
substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of law, to
be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual adjudicatory hearings
are to be held on those issues found to meet the criteria of section
134 and set for hearing after oral argument.
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are
found in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures for
Expansion of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear
Power Reactors'' (published at 50 FR 41670, October 15, 1985) to 10 CFR
2.1101 et seq. Under those rules, any party to the proceeding may
invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the presiding
officer a written request for oral argument under 10 CFR 2.1109. To be
timely, the request must be filed within 10 days of an order granting a
request for hearing or petition to intervene. (As outlined above, the
Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G, and 2.714 in
particular, continue to govern the filing of requests for a hearing or
petitions to intervene, as well as the admission of contentions.) The
presiding officer shall grant a timely request for oral argument. The
presiding officer may grant untimely request for oral argument only
upon showing of good cause by the requesting party for the failure to
file on time and after providing the other parties an opportunity to
respond to the untimely request. If the presiding officer grants a
request for oral argument, any hearing held on the application shall be
concluded in accordance with hybrid hearing procedures. In essence,
those procedures limit the time available for discovery and require
that an oral argument be held to determine whether any contentions must
be resolved in adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the proceedings
requests oral argument, or if all untimely requests for oral argument
are denied, then the usual procedures in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G,
apply.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated November 25, 1994, 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 Ocean County Library, Reference
Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander W. Dromerick,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-31199 Filed 12-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M