[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 130 (Thursday, July 8, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36933-36936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17294]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-346]


FirstEnergy Nuclear Opertaing Co.; 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 amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-3 issued to FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (the licensee) 
for operation of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Ottawa 
County, Ohio.
    The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specifications to 
increase the spent fuel storage capacity by allowing the use of fuel 
storage racks in the cask pit, which is adjacent to the spent fuel 
pool.
    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:
    The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS) has reviewed the 
proposed changes and determined that a significant hazards 
consideration does not exist because operation of the Davis-Besse 
Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.

[[Page 36934]]

1, in accordance with these changes would:
    1a. Not involve a significant increase in the probability of an 
accident previously evaluated because the activities performed in and 
around the spent fuel pool and cask pit will not be significantly 
changed due to the use of spent fuel racks installed in the cask pit 
area.
    In the analysis of the safety issues concerning the expanded spent 
fuel storage capacity, the following previously postulated accident 
scenarios have been considered:

--Misloaded or Mislocated Fuel Assembly
--Seismic Event
--Fuel Handling Accident

    In addition, spent fuel cask crane travel and the effects of a loss 
of spent fuel pool cooling have been evaluated.
    The proposed Technical Specification (TS) changes have no bearing 
on the probability of a seismic event or the probability of a loss of 
spent fuel pool cooling.
    The probability of a fuel handling accident is primarily a function 
of fuel handling equipment reliability and fuel handling procedures. 
The probability of inadvertent misloading or mislocation of a fuel 
assembly is primarily a function of fuel handling procedures. Since the 
methods and procedures for handling fuel assemblies will not be 
significantly changed under the proposed TS changes, there will be no 
significant increase in the probability of these events.
    1b. Not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated because evaluations for each postulated 
accident have shown that the consequences remain bounded by the 
consequences from the previously evaluated accidents.
    In the analysis of the safety issues concerning the expanded spent 
fuel storage capacity, the following previously postulated accident 
scenarios have been considered:

--Misloaded or Mislocated Fuel Assembly
--Seismic Event
--Fuel Handling Accident

    In addition, spent fuel cask crane travel and the effects of a loss 
of spent fuel pool cooling have been evaluated.
    The criticality analyses for the spent fuel storage racks located 
in the cask pit require burnup/enrichment limitations similar to those 
currently in place for the spent fuel pool. These burnup/enrichment 
limitations are imposed by the proposed changes to TS 3/4.9.13, 
Refueling Operations--Spent Fuel Pool Fuel Assembly Storage. The 
criticality evaluation for the cask pit racks shows that if an 
unirradiated fuel assembly of the highest permissible enrichment is 
placed in an unauthorized storage cell or mislocated outside a storage 
rack, Keff will be maintained 0.95, taking credit 
for soluble boron in the cask pit water. Therefore, there will be no 
radiological consequences.
    The evaluation of a loss of spent fuel pool cooling shows that 
sufficient time will be available, before the onset of pool boiling, to 
restore cooling or to provide a source of makeup water. Therefore, the 
racks will remain submerged and fuel stored therein will remain 
sufficiently cooled, and there will be no adverse consequences due to 
the proposed changes.
    The results of the seismic evaluation demonstrate that the cask pit 
racks will remain intact and that the structural capability of the pool 
and liner will not be exceeded. The Auxiliary Building structure will 
remain intact during a seismic event and will continue to adequately 
support and protect the fuel racks and pool water inventory, therefore, 
the rack geometry and cooling to the fuel will be maintained. Thus, 
there will be no adverse consequences due to the proposed changes.
    The results of the fuel handling mechanical accident evaluation and 
criticality evaluation show that the minimum subcriticality margin, 
Keff less than or equal to 0.95, will be maintained and 
cooling will remain adequate. In addition, the analyses show that the 
cask pit liner will not be pierced, and although the underlying 
concrete could experience local crushing, the cask pit structure will 
not suffer catastrophic damage. The radiological dose resulting from 
the release caused by a fuel handling accident will not be increased 
from that previously considered.
    The spent fuel cask crane travel interlocking design features were 
evaluated. Modification of the interlocking device to further restrict 
crane travel from over the cask pit maintains the same restriction of 
movement of loads over stored fuel that currently exists for the spent 
fuel pool.
    2. Not create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated because the function 
and parameters of the components and the associated activities 
necessary to support safe storage of fuel assemblies in the cask pit 
are similar to those presently in place. The methods and procedures for 
handling fuel assemblies would not be significantly changed. Therefore, 
the list of postulated accidents remains unchanged.
    Any event which would modify parameters important to safe fuel 
storage sufficiently to place them outside of the boundaries analyzed 
for normal conditions and/or outside of the boundaries previously 
considered for accidents would be considered a new or different 
accident. The fuel storage configuration and the existence of the 
coolant are the parameters that are important to safe fuel storage. The 
proposed changes do not alter the operating requirements of the plant 
or of the equipment credited in the mitigation of the design basis 
accidents, nor do they affect the important parameters required to 
ensure safe fuel storage. Therefore, the potential for a new or 
previously unanalyzed accident is not created.
    3. Not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety 
because for the proposed changes, appropriate evaluations have shown 
compliance with stipulated safety margins.
    The objective of spent fuel storage is to store the fuel assemblies 
in a subcritical and coolable configuration through all environmental 
and abnormal loadings, such as a seismic event or a fuel handling 
accident. The design of the spent fuel racks located in the cask pit 
meets all applicable requirements for safe fuel storage. The seismic 
and structural design of the racks preserves the proper margin of 
safety during normal and abnormal loads. The methodology used in the 
criticality analysis meets the applicable regulatory guidance. The 
thermal-hydraulic evaluation of the pool demonstrates that the cask pit 
will be maintained below the specified thermal limits under the 
conditions of the maximum heat load and during all credible malfunction 
scenarios and seismic events. Upon the unlikely event of a complete 
loss of spent fuel pool cooling, sufficient time will be available, 
before the onset of pool boiling, to restore cooling or to provide a 
source of makeup water. Therefore, the racks will remain submerged and 
fuel stored therein will remain sufficiently cooled. In addition, the 
results of the fuel handling accident evaluation show that the minimum 
subcriticality margin will be maintained, cooling will remain adequate, 
the cask pit structure will not suffer catastrophic damage, and the 
radiological dose resulting from the release caused by a fuel handling 
accident will not be increased from that previously considered.
    Thus, it is concluded that the proposed changes do not involve a 
significant reduction in the margin of safety.

[[Page 36935]]

    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 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 August 5, 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 University of Toledo, William Carlson 
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue, 
Toledo, OH 43606. 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 Jay E. Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, 
Pittman, Potts and 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

[[Page 36936]]

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 May 21, 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 University of Toledo, William Carlson 
Library, Government Documents Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue, 
Toledo, OH 43606.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Stewart N. Bailey,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate 3, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-17294 Filed 7-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P