[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36933-36936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17294]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-346]
FirstEnergy Nuclear Opertaing 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 amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-3 issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee)
for operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa
County, Ohio.
The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications to
increase the spent fuel storage capacity by allowing the use of fuel
storage racks in the cask pit, which is adjacent to the spent fuel
pool.
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:
The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) has reviewed the
proposed changes and determined that a significant hazards
consideration does not exist because operation of the Davis-Besse
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.
[[Page 36934]]
1, in accordance with these changes would:
1a. Not involve a significant increase in the probability of an
accident previously evaluated because the activities performed in and
around the spent fuel pool and cask pit will not be significantly
changed due to the use of spent fuel racks installed in the cask pit
area.
In the analysis of the safety issues concerning the expanded spent
fuel storage capacity, the following previously postulated accident
scenarios have been considered:
--Misloaded or Mislocated Fuel Assembly
--Seismic Event
--Fuel Handling Accident
In addition, spent fuel cask crane travel and the effects of a loss
of spent fuel pool cooling have been evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes have no bearing
on the probability of a seismic event or the probability of a loss of
spent fuel pool cooling.
The probability of a fuel handling accident is primarily a function
of fuel handling equipment reliability and fuel handling procedures.
The probability of inadvertent misloading or mislocation of a fuel
assembly is primarily a function of fuel handling procedures. Since the
methods and procedures for handling fuel assemblies will not be
significantly changed under the proposed TS changes, there will be no
significant increase in the probability of these events.
1b. Not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an
accident previously evaluated because evaluations for each postulated
accident have shown that the consequences remain bounded by the
consequences from the previously evaluated accidents.
In the analysis of the safety issues concerning the expanded spent
fuel storage capacity, the following previously postulated accident
scenarios have been considered:
--Misloaded or Mislocated Fuel Assembly
--Seismic Event
--Fuel Handling Accident
In addition, spent fuel cask crane travel and the effects of a loss
of spent fuel pool cooling have been evaluated.
The criticality analyses for the spent fuel storage racks located
in the cask pit require burnup/enrichment limitations similar to those
currently in place for the spent fuel pool. These burnup/enrichment
limitations are imposed by the proposed changes to TS 3/4.9.13,
Refueling Operations--Spent Fuel Pool Fuel Assembly Storage. The
criticality evaluation for the cask pit racks shows that if an
unirradiated fuel assembly of the highest permissible enrichment is
placed in an unauthorized storage cell or mislocated outside a storage
rack, Keff will be maintained 0.95, taking credit
for soluble boron in the cask pit water. Therefore, there will be no
radiological consequences.
The evaluation of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling shows that
sufficient time will be available, before the onset of pool boiling, to
restore cooling or to provide a source of makeup water. Therefore, the
racks will remain submerged and fuel stored therein will remain
sufficiently cooled, and there will be no adverse consequences due to
the proposed changes.
The results of the seismic evaluation demonstrate that the cask pit
racks will remain intact and that the structural capability of the pool
and liner will not be exceeded. The Auxiliary Building structure will
remain intact during a seismic event and will continue to adequately
support and protect the fuel racks and pool water inventory, therefore,
the rack geometry and cooling to the fuel will be maintained. Thus,
there will be no adverse consequences due to the proposed changes.
The results of the fuel handling mechanical accident evaluation and
criticality evaluation show that the minimum subcriticality margin,
Keff less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained and
cooling will remain adequate. In addition, the analyses show that the
cask pit liner will not be pierced, and although the underlying
concrete could experience local crushing, the cask pit structure will
not suffer catastrophic damage. The radiological dose resulting from
the release caused by a fuel handling accident will not be increased
from that previously considered.
The spent fuel cask crane travel interlocking design features were
evaluated. Modification of the interlocking device to further restrict
crane travel from over the cask pit maintains the same restriction of
movement of loads over stored fuel that currently exists for the spent
fuel pool.
2. Not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated because the function
and parameters of the components and the associated activities
necessary to support safe storage of fuel assemblies in the cask pit
are similar to those presently in place. The methods and procedures for
handling fuel assemblies would not be significantly changed. Therefore,
the list of postulated accidents remains unchanged.
Any event which would modify parameters important to safe fuel
storage sufficiently to place them outside of the boundaries analyzed
for normal conditions and/or outside of the boundaries previously
considered for accidents would be considered a new or different
accident. The fuel storage configuration and the existence of the
coolant are the parameters that are important to safe fuel storage. The
proposed changes do not alter the operating requirements of the plant
or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the design basis
accidents, nor do they affect the important parameters required to
ensure safe fuel storage. Therefore, the potential for a new or
previously unanalyzed accident is not created.
3. Not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety
because for the proposed changes, appropriate evaluations have shown
compliance with stipulated safety margins.
The objective of spent fuel storage is to store the fuel assemblies
in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all environmental
and abnormal loadings, such as a seismic event or a fuel handling
accident. The design of the spent fuel racks located in the cask pit
meets all applicable requirements for safe fuel storage. The seismic
and structural design of the racks preserves the proper margin of
safety during normal and abnormal loads. The methodology used in the
criticality analysis meets the applicable regulatory guidance. The
thermal-hydraulic evaluation of the pool demonstrates that the cask pit
will be maintained below the specified thermal limits under the
conditions of the maximum heat load and during all credible malfunction
scenarios and seismic events. Upon the unlikely event of a complete
loss of spent fuel pool cooling, sufficient time will be available,
before the onset of pool boiling, to restore cooling or to provide a
source of makeup water. Therefore, the racks will remain submerged and
fuel stored therein will remain sufficiently cooled. In addition, the
results of the fuel handling accident evaluation show that the minimum
subcriticality margin will be maintained, cooling will remain adequate,
the cask pit structure will not suffer catastrophic damage, and the
radiological dose resulting from the release caused by a fuel handling
accident will not be increased from that previously considered.
Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
[[Page 36935]]
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 Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative 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 6D59, 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 5, 1999, 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 University of Toledo, William Carlson
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue,
Toledo, OH 43606. 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.
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 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,
by the above date. 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 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire, 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
[[Page 36936]]
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, preceded 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 only 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 Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear Power
Reactors' (published at 50 FR 41662 dated October 15, 1985). 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 ten (10) days of an order granting a request for hearing
or petition to intervene. The presiding officer must grant a timely
request for oral argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely
request for oral argument only upon a 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 must be conducted in accordance with the 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 an adjudicatory
hearing. If no party to the proceeding timely requests oral argument,
and 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 May 21, 1999, 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 University of Toledo, William Carlson
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue,
Toledo, OH 43606.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart N. Bailey,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate 3, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-17294 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
