[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