[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