[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