[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25746-25749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11758]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-213]
Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co.; 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-61, issued to Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (the
licensee), for operation of the Haddam Neck Plant located in Middlesex
County, Connecticut.
The proposed amendment will delete Technical Specification (TS)
Sections 1.38 and 1.39, ``Definitions, Fuel Assembly Types,'' revise TS
Sections 3/4.9.3, ``Refueling Operations, Decay Time'' and TS 3/4.9.14,
``Refueling Operations, Spent Fuel Pool--Reactivity Condition,''
replace TS Sections 5.6.1.1, ``Spent Fuel,'' and TS 5.6.3,
``Capacity,'' and add a new TS Section 3/4.9.15, ``Refueling
Operations, Spent Fuel Pool [[Page 25747]] Cooling.'' These changes
would support a rerack of the spent fuel pool to expand the spent fuel
pool's storage capacity from 1168 assemblies to 1480 assemblies so as
to accommodate a full-core-discharge through the current validity date
of the Haddam Neck operating license (2007).
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 licenses has provided its analysis of
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below:
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
In the analysis of the safety issues concerning the expanded
pool storage capacity, CYAPCO has considered the following potential
accident scenarios:
a. A spent fuel assembly drop in the spent fuel pool.
b. Loss of spent fuel pool cooling flow.
c. A seismic event.
d. An accident drop of a rack module during constructional
activity in the pool.
The probability that any of the first three accidents in the
above list can occur is not significantly increased by the
modification itself. All work in the pool area will be controlled
and performed in strict accordance with the specific written
procedures. As for a construction accident, safe load paths will be
established that will prevent heavy loads from being transported
over the spent fuel. Operability of the cranes will be checked and
verified before the re-racking operation. All lift rigging and the
refueling crane/hoist system will be verified that they comply with
the provisions of CMAA Specification No. 70, ANSI B30.2, B30.9, and
B30.11. All heavy lifts will be performed in accordance with
established station procedures, which will comply with NUREG-0612,
``Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants.'' This will
minimize the possibility of a heavy load drop accident.
Accordingly, the proposed modification does not involve a
significant increase in the probability of an accident previously
evaluated.
CYAPCO has evaluated the consequences of accidental drop of a
fuel assembly in the spent fuel pool. The results show that such an
accident will not distort the racks sufficiently to impair their
functionality. The minimum subscripticality margin,
Keff0.95, will be maintained. The radiological
consequences of a fuel assembly drop are not increased. Thus the
consequences of such an accident remain acceptable and are not
different from any previously evaluated accidents that have been
reviewed and found acceptable by the NRC.
The consequences of a loss of the spent fuel pool cooling have
been evaluated and found acceptable. The expansion of the pool
storage capacity does not increase the failure modes of the pool
cooling system. In the unlikely event that all pool cooling is lost,
sufficient time is available for the operators to provide alternate
means of cooling before the onset of pool boiling.
The consequences of a design basis seismic event have been
evaluated and found acceptable. The new and the existing racks have
been analyzed in their new configuration and found safe and impact-
free during seismic motion. The structural capability of the pool
will not be exceeded under the dead weight, thermal, and seismic
loads. The fuel building and the yard crane structure will retain
the necessary safety margins during a seismic event. Thus, the
consequences of a seismic event are not significantly increased.
The consequences of a spent fuel cask drop into the pool have
not been addressed in this submittal since CYAPCO is not currently
licensed to move a fuel cask into the spent fuel pool area.
The consequences of an accidental drop of a rack module into the
pool during placement have been evaluated. The analysis confirmed
that very limited damage to the liner could occur which is
repairable. All movements of heavy loads over the pool will comply
with the applicable guidelines. Therefore, the consequences of a
construction accident are not increased from any previously
evaluated accident.
Therefore it is concluded that the proposed changes do not
significantly increase the probability or consequences of any
accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously analyzed.
The change does not alter the operating requirements of the
plant or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the design
basis accidents. Therefore, the potential for an un-analyzed
accident is not created. The postulated failure modes associated
with the change do not significantly decrease the coolability of the
spent fuel in the pool. The resulting structural, thermal, and
seismic loads are acceptable.
Therefore, the change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The function of the spent fuel pool is to store the fuel
assemblies in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all
environmental and abnormal loadings, such as an earthquake, fuel
assembly drop, or drop of any other heavy object. The new rack
design must meet all applicable requirements for safe storage and be
functionally compatible with the other rack designs in the spent
fuel pool.
CYAPCO has addressed the safety issues related to the expanded
pool storage capacity in the following areas:
1. Material, mechanical and structural considerations.
2. Nuclear criticality.
3. Thermal-hydraulic and pool cooling.
The mechanical, material, and structural designs of the new
racks have been reviewed in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the NRC Guidance entitled, ``Review and Acceptance of
Spent Fuel Storage and Handling Applications''. The rack materials
used are compatible with the spent fuel assemblies and the spent
fuel pool environment. The design of the new racks preserves the
proper margin of safety during abnormal loads such as a dropped
assembly and tensile loads from a stuck assembly. It has been shown
that such loads will not invalidate the mechanical design and
material selection to safely store fuel in a coolable and
subcritical configuration.
The methodology used in the critically analysis of the expanded
spent fuel pool meets the appropriate NRC guidelines and the ANSI
standards. The margin of safety for subcriticality is determined by
the neutron multiplication factor equal to, or less than, 0.95 under
all accident conditions, including uncertainties. This criterion has
been preserved in all analyzed accidents.
The thermo-hydraulic and cooling evaluation of the pool
demonstrated that the pool can be maintained below the specified
thermal limits under the conditions of the maximum heat load and
during all credible accident sequences and seismic events. The pool
temperature will not exceed 150 deg. F during the worst single
failure of a cooling pump. The maximum local water temperature in
the hot channel will remain below the boiling point. The fuel will
not undergo any significant heat up after an accidential drop of a
fuel assembly on top of the rack blocking the flow path. A loss of
cooling to the pool will allow sufficient time for the operators to
intervene and line up alternate cooling paths and the means of
inventory make-up in time before the onset of boiling.
Thus, it is concluded that the changes do not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
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
[[Page 25748]] 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 June 12, 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 Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,
Middletown, CT 06457. 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 particularly 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 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 Ms. L. M. Cuoco,
Senior Nuclear Counsel, Northeast Utilities Service Company, Post
Office Box 270, Hartford, CT 06141-0270, 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
[[Page 25749]] 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 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
conducted 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 March 31, 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 Russell Library, 123 Broad Street,
Middletown, CT 06457.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 5th day of May 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-11758 Filed 5-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
