[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44757-44759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21308]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-219]
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; 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-16 issued to GPU Nuclear, Inc. and Jersey Central Power & Light
Company (the licensee) for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (OCNGS) located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
The proposed amendment would modify the OCNGS Technical
Specifications to reflect installation of additional spent fuel pool
storage racks. The additional new racks will provide 390 additional
spent fuel assembly storage locations.
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. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The following previously analyzed accident
scenarios have been considered as part of the analyses required to
support the installation of the high density spent fuel storage
racks:
(a) Spent Fuel Assembly Drop--The criticality acceptance
criteria, Keff [less than or equal to] 0.95, is
maintained for postulated abnormal occurrences such as a fuel
assembly misloading or assembly drop. The radiological consequences
of a fuel handling
[[Page 44758]]
accident in the spent fuel pool remain well within the guidelines of
10 CFR 100 and Standard Review Plan 15.7.4.
(b) Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Flow--The spent fuel
pool cooling system will continue to provide acceptable cooling of
the stored assemblies. Approximately 5 hours is available before
reaching the Technical Specification limit of 125 deg.F and
approximately 45 hours is available before reaching the analyzed
peak bulk pool temperature. Therefore, sufficient time is available
to respond to the spent fuel pool water temperature control room
alarm (120 deg.F) and to provide an alternate means of cooling in
the event of a failure in the cooling system. Therefore, the
proposed change has no affect on this accident scenario.
(c) Seismic Event--The new racks are designed and fabricated to
remain functional during and after a Safe Shutdown Earthquake under
all loading conditions. Analysis has demonstrated that no rack-to-
wall impacts occur. Analyzed potential rack-to-rack impacts
demonstrates the stored fuel configuration remains unaffected. Spent
fuel pool structural analysis demonstrates that for the bonding
factored load combinations, including the weight of a shipping cask
(100 tons), structural integrity is maintained when the pool is
assumed to be fully loaded with 3,035 spent fuel assemblies.
Therefore, the proposed change has no affect on this accident
scenario.
(d) Spent Fuel Cask Drop--Structural analysis of the spent fuel
pool demonstrates that the pool structure remains adequate for the
loadings associated with normal operation and the condition
resulting from the postulated cask drop accident.
Accordingly, the proposed modification does not increase the
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Administrative controls during rack installation would preclude the
movement of a new rack directly over any fuel. The new racks will be
lifted using the 100-ton overhead crane which has a sufficient
safety factor such that potential single failure mechanisms need not
be considered. The lifting device designed for handling and
installation of the new racks is in compliance with NUREG-0612. A
postulated rack drop analysis demonstrates that the pool structure
would not sustain significant damage from the postulated rack drop.
The analysis shows that the rack pedestal would pierce the pool
liner with localized concrete cracking. Any leakage resulting from
such localized damage would be detectable and capability is provided
to make up the loss of inventory to the pool. No unproven technology
is involved either in the installation process or in the analytical
techniques utilized to evaluate the planned fuel storage expansion.
The basic technology for fuel pool expansion has been developed and
demonstrated in over 80 applications for fuel pool capacity
increases previously approved by NRC. The proposed modification has
been evaluated in accordance with the guidance of NRC Position
Paper, ``OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage
and Handling Applications,'' April 14, 1978, and Addendum dated
January 18, 1979. Therefore, this change has no affect on the
possibility of creating a new or different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of
safety. Analysis has demonstrated that the established criticality
acceptance criteria, Keff [less than or equal to] 0.95
including uncertainties, is maintained with the racks fully loaded
with fuel of the highest anticipated reactivity. Thermal-hydraulic
analyses demonstrate that the pool bulk temperatures are maintained
below 125 deg.F for the normal refueling offload and the full-core
offload discharge scenarios using the augmented fuel pool heat
exchanger, and that the maximum local water temperature along the
hottest fuel assembly is below the nucleate boiling condition value.
The maximum bulk pool temperatures for each of the analyzed
scenarios confirms that adequate time is available to provide an
alternative means of cooling in the event of a failure in the
cooling system. The rack materials used are compatible with the
spent fuel pool and the spent fuel assemblies. The structural
analyses have demonstrated that the proposed change maintains spent
fuel pool structural integrity and margins of safety. The new racks
are designed and fabricated to remain functional during and after a
Safe Shutdown Earthquake. Therefore, this change has no affect on
the margins of safety related to nuclear criticality, thermal and
structural integrity, and material compatibility.
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 maybe 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 September 16, 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 Ocean County Library, Reference
Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 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
[[Page 44759]]
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 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, 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 June 18, 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 Ocean County Library, Reference
Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08753.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August 1999.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn,
Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-21308 Filed 8-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
