GPU Nuclear Corporation; Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-219]

GPU Nuclear Corporation; 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 Corporation (GPUN/the licensee) for

operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS)

located in Ocean County, New Jersey.

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification 5.3.1.E

to allow 2645 fuel assemblies to be stored in the fuel pool. This is an

increase of 45 fuel assemblies from the current limit of 2600. The 45

additional storage location currently exist in the racks in the fuel

pool. They were included in the re-racking project allowed by License

Amendment No. 76 but were not incorporated in the Technical

Specifications since, at the time, it was believed they would not be

needed.

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 operation of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,

in accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a

significant increase in the probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated.

There are no changes in the existing provisions for load

handling in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool associated with the

proposed increase in licensed storage capacity. OCNGS Technical

Specification 5.3.1.B limits the loads carried over the spent fuel

pool to no greater than the weight of one fuel assembly. Therefore,

accidents involving the mispositioning or drop of a fuel assembly

establish the extent of accident probability or consequences. The

Abnormal Positioning of a Fuel Assembly Outside the Storage Rack and

the Dropped Fuel Assembly accident scenarios are addressed as

follows:

a. The probability of occurrence of the above accidents is not

affected by the racks themselves or the stored fuel. Since no

physical changes are being made to the racks, an increase in

licensed storage capacity cannot increase the probability of these

accidents.

b. The consequences of abnormal positioning of a fuel assembly

outside the storage rack were evaluated. Since the storage rack

criticality calculations were made using an infinite array of

storage cells with no neutron leakage, positioning a fuel assembly

outside and adjacent to the actual finite rack can add reactivity,

but would, because of neutron leakage, result in a lower Keff

than the Koo calculated for the infinite array. Thus,

additional stored fuel assemblies will not increase consequences of

this type of accident than those previously evaluated.

c. The consequences of a dropped fuel assembly striking either

the base of the rack or the top of a storage location and the

reactivity effects were also evaluated in the licensing report

supporting Amendment 76. In all cases, the evaluated integrity of

the racks was not exceeded. Also, the dropped fuel assembly did not

constitute a criticality hazard because the infinite multiplication

factor of the fuel storage racks was not materially altered. An

increase in fuel enrichment does not increase consequences since the

GE-9 assemblies' mechanical specifications are bounded by previous

designs and consequences are not dependent on U-235 enrichment.

Thus, since no physical alteration of the storage racks is necessary

to store 45 additional fuel assemblies the consequences of this type

of accident are not increased.

2. The operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, in

accordance with the proposed amendment, will not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

The increase in licensed spent fuel pool storage capacity

involves the addition of 45 fuel assemblies. The increased

structural loading has already been accounted for in the analyses

reviewed by the NRC staff in support of Amendment 76. There are no

physical changes to the fuel pool cooling. These systems are capable

of handling the additional duty originating from the additional

fuel. Criticality accidents or malfunctions also do not change

because the analysis assumes an infinite array of fuel and Boraflex

gaps have been conservatively accounted for. Therefore, there is no

possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than

previously evaluated.

3. The operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, in

accordance with the proposed amendment, will not involve a

significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The margin of safety, when applied to a storage expansion, needs

to address nuclear criticality, thermal-hydraulic, mechanical,

material and structural adequacy.

Nuclear Criticality

The acceptance criterion for criticality as established in

Technical Specification 5.3.1.A, is that the neutron multiplication

factor shall be less than or equal to 0.95, including all

uncertainties.

Since the increase in licensed capacity to 2,600 storage

locations, the maximum allowable average enrichment was increased

twice. The original analysis was for 3.01% U-235 enrichment fuel

with no credit for Gd203. Subsequent analyses increased

the maximum allowable enrichment to 3.8% and then 4.0% U-235. Both

analyses take credit for Gd203 requiring a minimum of 7

(seven) rods containing 3.0% or more Gd203.

Subsequent to the rack installation, an industry concern was

raised with the discovery of the formation of gaps in Boraflex

panels. The problem of gap formation in the boraflex and its impact

on criticality has been addressed. The criticality analysis was

updated to take into account the presence of gaps, including

projected gap formation is coplanar. The fuel pool Keff for the

4.0% U-235 enriched fuel with at least 7 (seven) Gd203

rods at peak reactivity is 0.9174 and increases to 0.945 with 3.9

inch coplanar gaps in the Boraflex which is below the 0.95 limit.

Oyster Creek maintains a Boraflex surveillance program to ensure the

assumptions used in the analysis remain valid.

Since all criticality analyses were performed with an infinite

lattice, it is valid for a spent fuel pool capacity of 2,645 fuel

assemblies. Therefore, there is no decrease in the margin of safety.

Thermal-Hydraulic

The heat load analysis performed for the expansion to 2600

licensed storage locations considered all 2,645 actual storage

locations filled. Therefore, the initial conclusions are not changed

and no re-analysis is required. The thermal-hydraulic calculations

which used 125 deg. F pool water temperature, have shown that the

cladding temperatures (<219 deg. F) will be well below the local

fuel pool water saturation temperature of approximately 240 deg. F.

The maximum cladding temperatures will be low enough to preclude

nucleate boiling.

Analysis has demonstrated that with an abnormal heat load from

2,732 fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool, the temperature of the

pool will be maintained within the Technical Specification limit to

125 deg. F. Therefore, since this limit will be maintained, other

restrictions such as the temperature differential of the spent fuel

pool liner will also be maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in

the margin of safety from a thermal-hydraulic point of view.

Mechanical and Structural

The additional 45 storage locations were part of the fuel pool

expansion of which only 2,600 fuel assemblies were licensed for

storage. The fuel storage racks are designed to maintain the spent

fuel assemblies in a safe configuration through all environmental

and abnormal loadings, such as an SSE or impact due to spent fuel

assembly drop. Structural and seismic analyses of the racks have

established margins against tilting, deflection or movement to

preclude impact of the racks with each other or with the pool walls.

It is shown that the rack modules will undergo infinitesimal

rotations if seismic excitation 50% over the SSE loading are

imposed. The threshold of kinematic instability is not even

approached.

Analyses performed to arrive at the above conclusions indicate

that margins in all areas of structural concern exist. The racks are

placed in the pool as individual stand-alone structures, do not load

pool walls directly, and are uncoupled from pool liner temperature

rise.

To limit the out-of-phase motion of adjacent racks due to non-

symmetric loading of the racks, Oyster Creek procedures for loading

spent fuel pool racks require the racks to be loaded symmetrically,

i.e. the total fuel assemblies stored in any one quadrant of a rack

will not deviate by more than 10% of the average of the four

quadrants. This limitation will remain in effect for storage of

2,645 fuel assemblies.

In summary, the additional 45 fuel bundles in storage will not

decrease structural margins since there is no associated physical

change to the storage facility and the 2,645 fuel assemblies were

considered in the original analysis which demonstrated that the

acceptance criteria were met.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on

this review, it appear 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 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 January 19, 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 Ocean County Library, Reference

Department, 101 Washington Street, Toms River, New Jersey 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.

No 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 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, 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

concluded 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 November 25, 1994, 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, New Jersey 08753.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of December 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Alexander W. Dromerick,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate I-4, Division of Reactor

Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-31199 Filed 12-19-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M