[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 17, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44757-44759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21308]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-219]


Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; 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. and Jersey Central Power & Light 
Company (the licensee) for operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear 
Generating Station (OCNGS) located in Ocean County, New Jersey.
    The proposed amendment would modify the OCNGS Technical 
Specifications to reflect installation of additional spent fuel pool 
storage racks. The additional new racks will provide 390 additional 
spent fuel assembly storage locations.
    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. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant increase in the 
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated. The following previously analyzed accident 
scenarios have been considered as part of the analyses required to 
support the installation of the high density spent fuel storage 
racks:
    (a) Spent Fuel Assembly Drop--The criticality acceptance 
criteria, Keff [less than or equal to] 0.95, is 
maintained for postulated abnormal occurrences such as a fuel 
assembly misloading or assembly drop. The radiological consequences 
of a fuel handling

[[Page 44758]]

accident in the spent fuel pool remain well within the guidelines of 
10 CFR 100 and Standard Review Plan 15.7.4.
    (b) Loss of Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Flow--The spent fuel 
pool cooling system will continue to provide acceptable cooling of 
the stored assemblies. Approximately 5 hours is available before 
reaching the Technical Specification limit of 125  deg.F and 
approximately 45 hours is available before reaching the analyzed 
peak bulk pool temperature. Therefore, sufficient time is available 
to respond to the spent fuel pool water temperature control room 
alarm (120  deg.F) and to provide an alternate means of cooling in 
the event of a failure in the cooling system. Therefore, the 
proposed change has no affect on this accident scenario.
    (c) Seismic Event--The new racks are designed and fabricated to 
remain functional during and after a Safe Shutdown Earthquake under 
all loading conditions. Analysis has demonstrated that no rack-to-
wall impacts occur. Analyzed potential rack-to-rack impacts 
demonstrates the stored fuel configuration remains unaffected. Spent 
fuel pool structural analysis demonstrates that for the bonding 
factored load combinations, including the weight of a shipping cask 
(100 tons), structural integrity is maintained when the pool is 
assumed to be fully loaded with 3,035 spent fuel assemblies. 
Therefore, the proposed change has no affect on this accident 
scenario.
    (d) Spent Fuel Cask Drop--Structural analysis of the spent fuel 
pool demonstrates that the pool structure remains adequate for the 
loadings associated with normal operation and the condition 
resulting from the postulated cask drop accident.
    Accordingly, the proposed modification does not increase the 
probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different 
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 
Administrative controls during rack installation would preclude the 
movement of a new rack directly over any fuel. The new racks will be 
lifted using the 100-ton overhead crane which has a sufficient 
safety factor such that potential single failure mechanisms need not 
be considered. The lifting device designed for handling and 
installation of the new racks is in compliance with NUREG-0612. A 
postulated rack drop analysis demonstrates that the pool structure 
would not sustain significant damage from the postulated rack drop. 
The analysis shows that the rack pedestal would pierce the pool 
liner with localized concrete cracking. Any leakage resulting from 
such localized damage would be detectable and capability is provided 
to make up the loss of inventory to the pool. No unproven technology 
is involved either in the installation process or in the analytical 
techniques utilized to evaluate the planned fuel storage expansion. 
The basic technology for fuel pool expansion has been developed and 
demonstrated in over 80 applications for fuel pool capacity 
increases previously approved by NRC. The proposed modification has 
been evaluated in accordance with the guidance of NRC Position 
Paper, ``OT Position for Review and Acceptance of Spent Fuel Storage 
and Handling Applications,'' April 14, 1978, and Addendum dated 
January 18, 1979. Therefore, this change has no affect on the 
possibility of creating a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated.
    3. Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of 
safety. Analysis has demonstrated that the established criticality 
acceptance criteria, Keff [less than or equal to] 0.95 
including uncertainties, is maintained with the racks fully loaded 
with fuel of the highest anticipated reactivity. Thermal-hydraulic 
analyses demonstrate that the pool bulk temperatures are maintained 
below 125  deg.F for the normal refueling offload and the full-core 
offload discharge scenarios using the augmented fuel pool heat 
exchanger, and that the maximum local water temperature along the 
hottest fuel assembly is below the nucleate boiling condition value. 
The maximum bulk pool temperatures for each of the analyzed 
scenarios confirms that adequate time is available to provide an 
alternative means of cooling in the event of a failure in the 
cooling system. The rack materials used are compatible with the 
spent fuel pool and the spent fuel assemblies. The structural 
analyses have demonstrated that the proposed change maintains spent 
fuel pool structural integrity and margins of safety. The new racks 
are designed and fabricated to remain functional during and after a 
Safe Shutdown Earthquake. Therefore, this change has no affect on 
the margins of safety related to nuclear criticality, thermal and 
structural integrity, and material compatibility.

    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 maybe 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 September 16, 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 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

[[Page 44759]]

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).
    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 June 18, 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 Ocean County Library, Reference 
Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, NJ 08753.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn,
Sr. Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-21308 Filed 8-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P