[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 189 (Wednesday, September 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52307-52308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-26205]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-219]
GPU Nuclear, Inc. 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., (the licensee) for operation of the
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station located in Ocean County, New
Jersey.
The proposed amendment would revise Section 5.4.8 of the Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) such that it incorporates the use of a freeze seal as a
temporary part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary.
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 License Amendment Request does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
The proposed repair activity involves the placement of temporary
isolation barriers, including a freeze seal, in the [reactor water
cleanup] RWCU System piping in order to isolate valve V-16-63 from
the [reactor coolant system] RCS while repairs are being made. The
isolation barriers fulfill the function of the valve body, which is
passive integrity. The repair activity is similar to other
activities routinely performed during refueling outages that depend
upon single isolation barriers. The plant was designed to permit
such work with appropriate isolation barrier(s) in place. The work
associated with the proposed repair activity is consistent with this
premise.
The accident considered in this evaluation is a maintenance
repair activity with a RCS leak that, without adequate makeup, would
uncover the reactor core. Effective isolation provisions have been
incorporated into the scope of the proposed repair activity which
will minimize the probability that a RCS leak will occur. The freeze
seal barrier has been demonstrated to last 55 minutes following a
loss of nitrogen. The mitigating action to be taken upon a loss of
nitrogen supply with the stem/disc removed is to install a valve
bonnet seal plate assembly and thereby establish integrity of the
reactor coolant pressure boundary. In addition, sufficient makeup
capacity is provided to maintain the [reactor pressure vessel] RPV
water level at or above 56'' [top of active fuel] TAF.
Failure of the freeze seal barrier with the valve disc/stem
removed would result in a loss of RCS water inventory. The proposed
repair activity is bounded by the events evaluated in UFSAR Sections
15.6.5 ``Decrease in Reactor Coolant Inventory Events'' and 15.7.4
``Design Basis Fuel Handling Accidents in the Containment''.
Based on the above, the proposed activity does not involve a
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated.
2. The License Amendment Request does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
As indicated above, the accident considered in this evaluation
is a maintenance repair activity with a RCS leak that, without
adequate makeup, would uncover the reactor core. The proposed repair
activity is bounded by the events evaluated in UFSAR Sections 15.6.5
``Decrease in Reactor Coolant Inventory Events'' and 15.7.4 ``Design
Basis Fuel Handling Accidents in the Containment''. As such, the
proposed License Amendment does not create a new or different kind
of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The License Amendment Request does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
With respect to the piping subjected to the freeze seal, an
evaluation of stress and materials issues concluded that the
ductility and notch toughness of the pipe base metal, weld metal,
and weld heat affected zone will remain high during the operation.
In addition, no permanent changes to the base metal, weld metal or
heat affected zone material properties or corrosion resistance are
expected. Moreover, the maximum stress intensity in the cooled weld
is acceptable per [American Society of Mechanical Engineers] ASME
Codes or B31.1 requirements. In light of the above, it was concluded
that the pipe condition will not change as a result of the freeze
seal and that it will retain its capabilities to meet its design
loading.
A decrease in reactor coolant inventory caused by a leak or
rupture is a [loss-of-coolant-accident] LOCA condition that has been
evaluated in the UFSAR. The proposed repair activity is bounded by
the events evaluated in UFSAR Sections 15.6.5 ``Decrease in Reactor
Coolant Inventory Events'' and 15.7.4 ``Design Basis Fuel Handling
Accidents in the Containment''. The proposed repair activity will be
performed with at least one loop of the Reactor Recirculation System
in the open position whereas the bounding events include all loops
open. However, since the potential energy release from the primary
systems is significantly less than that which would be released for
the DBA event, the conditions with closed loops are bounded. One
train of the Core Spray System is capable of providing sufficient
water to restore the RPV water level, both trains will be operable
during the proposed repair activity.
Based on the above, the proposed License Amendment does not
involve a significant reduction in a 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
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-
[[Page 52308]]
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 October 30, 1998, 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 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).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated September 19, 1998, 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 24th day of September 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ronald B. Eaton,
Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-3, Division of Reactor
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 98-26205 Filed 9-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P